Orders of the Day

Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

John Randall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Winning the ballot for private Members' Bills is like winning the national lottery, except that one does not get the money. However, one does get all the begging letters. Coming out of the Committee Room where I had gone to see which poor soul had come top in the ballot, I felt rather like someone coming into a mediaeval court, having petitions thrust into my hand.
	Sometimes I feel that we in this place make too many laws and regulations, and the idea of adding to the burden on our population was a little much for me. However, I decided that deregulating was not my job—nor would I be capable of it—so I thought carefully about the Bill that I wanted to introduce. Ever since I was very young, I have had a passionate interest in wildlife and wildlife conservation, so despite the many obvious and worthy candidates for a Bill, I decided on the present subject.
	The Bill fills a significant gap in protection for the marine environment. I should say at the outset that the Bill should not be the final word: the Government need to take action on a much wider scale than my Bill would hope to achieve. Indeed, they have made such statements, and we in all parts of the House will make sure that they keep their word. A comprehensive approach is needed to marine management and conservation, including integrated planning and strategic environmental assessment. I hope that the Government's working group reviewing marine nature conservation will take matters forward.
	I introduced the Bill because I passionately believe that the marine environment needs better protection. The postbags of parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, which are full of letters from constituents supporting my Bill, indicate that the wider public share that passion. That may to some extent be fuelled by the BBC's excellent series "The Blue Planet".
	At least half of the United Kingdom's biodiversity is found in the marine environment, but existing laws do not adequately address its protection and management. Protection for marine habitats and species is far weaker than that for their equivalents on land, where protection was recently further improved by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The UK has international commitments to protect marine wildlife through the habitats and birds directive and the Ospar convention. However, there is no domestic legislation to underpin those obligations or for us to meet our national aspirations to conserve wildlife.
	For too long, the marine environment has been the Cinderella of wildlife conservation—a case of out of sight, out of mind. Surely it is a matter of great concern that such sensitive areas as Lyme bay in Dorset are unprotected, and that in areas where dolphins, porpoises, puffins and gannets can be found, their habitats are still vulnerable.

Peter Bottomley: When I was Northern Ireland Minister looking after agriculture and environment, we found that to be the case with Strangford lough, where it was difficult to find the powers to stop beam trawlers wrecking the lough bed. Proposals such as those that my hon. Friend is making would be useful not only outside territorial waters, but inside them.

John Randall: I thank my hon. Friend. He will know that Strangford lough is now a marine nature reserve and the Bill does not deal with Northern Ireland, but the point is well made. Such areas need protection.
	Coastal policy guidance states that sites of special scientific interest do not normally extend below the mean low water mark but can do so if there is local authority jurisdiction. That means in general that SSSIs—a land-based designation—are doing very little for the marine environment. My hon. Friend referred to Strangford lough, which is one of three marine nature reserves. They can be designated in coastal waters out to a distance of three nautical miles. However, since 1981 only those three marine nature reserves have been designated, the other two being Lundy and Skomer. The Government have accepted that the concept of MNRs
	"has not been as successful as had been hoped"
	and concluded that
	"procedures are regarded as complex and unwieldy, and in need of an administrative overhaul".
	Since the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, successive Governments have undertaken reviews which have identified the need to address shortfalls in the Act with respect to the marine environment. I am a relatively new Member, but I understand that in 1985 the Environment Select Committee suggested that one solution might be to extend the SSSI provisions of the Act to marine sites. In 1992, the Committee recommended that the Government address the issue of how to protect sites of marine conservation importance, and considered an option to extend SSSI-type mechanisms below the low water mark.
	In 1999, the House of Lords Committee Select Committee on the European Union concluded that a new approach was required to protect sites in the marine environment and that the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act should be reviewed to provide workable and effective protection for important marine areas of nature conservation interest.

Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and I were active members of the Committee that considered what became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We struggled hour after hour to wring out a concession for marine nature reserves. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the outcome has been a disappointment. Is part of the disappointment the fact that insufficient effort has been made to get local people, especially the fishing community, to accept MNRs in areas such as Loch Sween? I know that that is a Scottish example.

John Randall: I am sure that there was concern in the past, and I am sure that local people will be concerned about in today's environment. There is usually some reaction. During consultation on the Bill, we did not find significant local opposition. It might be true that the world has moved on—people are much more aware now of the importance of such sites and their responsibilities to them.
	As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is an important economic benefit in being near areas of marine importance, as with any wildlife area. There is increasing eco-tourism, and people want to visit pleasant places to enjoy them. The Government responded to recommendations by establishing the review of the marine nature conservation group, which was chaired by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Earlier this year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs submitted an interim report to Ministers that was based on work and discussions with the group. The membership of the group was a broad representation of interest groups, Government Departments and conservation bodies. The report concluded that only retention of the status quo seemed likely to require no statutory action. New duties imposed on DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales, which apply throughout the territorial waters of England and Wales, coupled with new duties on public bodies, open the possibility of protecting sites and marine waters. I agree entirely with the marine nature conservation group's view that retention of the status quo is not desirable, which is why I have introduced the Bill.
	I wanted there to be an inclusive process. At the end of July, I put my initial proposals out for wide consultation. Those consulted included the participants in the Government's review of the marine nature conservation working group, including ports, fishing organisations, energy interests and leisure interests. The response to the consultation paper was excellent. Most respondents agreed on the need for nationally important marine sites to be designated, although views on how to go about that varied.
	I listened to the respondents' views and took account of them. For example, my initial idea of simply extending SSSIs into the marine environment was dropped in favour of something specifically designed for the marine environment. The idea of introducing an offence of recklessness for users was dropped. I have been grateful for the assistance of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds both in helping me to consult and assisting me in drafting the Bill. I mention particularly Duncan Huggett, Ben Stafford and Sharon Thompson. I thank also David Lloyd of the Public Bill Office, who was waiting for an addition to his family. I am pleased to say that that addition has arrived safely.
	I put on record also my grateful thanks to DEFRA, which has helped me to define what should be achievable. I was happy that the Department undertook a more joined-up approach by consulting other Departments.
	There are extensive explanatory notes, which I hope will be helpful to Members in understanding the intention behind the Bill.

John Pugh: My constituency has an SSSI for wildfowl. Indeed, it is an area where there is a great variety of wildfowl. There are, however, quite promising environmental proposals for wind farms, which would be adjacent to the SSSI. As I understand it, the intention behind the Bill is not to have no development in a marine environment but to have controlled and sensitive development, and it will not necessarily prevent wind farm development out at sea. Is my understanding correct?

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. I have a feeling that there is some confusion in the wider world. It is thought by some that the Bill will mean no further economic development and no wind farms, for example. That is untrue. The Bill will lay down a designation of an area to ensure that if any development is considered, its importance as a scientific site will be taken into consideration.

David Chaytor: Is there not an argument that the Bill would assist the rational development of offshore wind farms? It would make possible an agreed protocol for the development of wind farms. At present, the development of onshore and offshore wind farms is fraught with controversy. Sometimes there is irrational opposition from the Ministry of Defence as well as from local protesters. Is there not an argument for supporting the Bill in that it would enable a more rational, planned development of renewable energy in the United Kingdom?

John Randall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a valid point. Some of the objections to the Bill stem from a misunderstanding of the objectives that lie behind it and of what will be achieved by it. I think that those who support the Bill would also support the idea of renewable energy sources. In doing one thing, it would be foolish to shut off something else in which we all have a great interest. I shall possibly touch on wind farms later in my remarks.

Gareth Thomas: I take up the point about renewable energy and offshore wind farm development. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the British Wind Energy Association has been clearly opposed to his Bill. I support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but does he recognise that SSSIs—the terrestrial equivalent of what he is trying to achieve—have been used by onshore objectors to wind farm projects as a way of delaying, stalling and thwarting onshore wind farm proposals? Should the House agree to the Bill being considered in Committee, will he agree to meet representatives of the British Wind Energy Association and to address their concerns before the Bill makes further progress?

John Randall: The British Wind Energy Association is one of the groups that I consulted. Its representatives expressed the notion that there was absolutely no need for this sort of Bill. It was the only organisation to express that view.
	Of course I will meet representatives of the BWEA. My approach throughout, and that of the RSPB, for example, which helped me to prepare the Bill, has been to consult. However, there must always be a compromise. I would not necessarily wish to place wind farms or any other development over and above a scientific interest. Neither would I say that a scientific interest should be placed first. That is why the Bill provides that the Secretary of State has ultimate power. I hope that my commitment to meet BWEA representatives and to consider in Committee any amendments that they may propose will go a long way to sorting out any problems that they have.
	It may be useful if I point out what my Bill does not do: it does not overlap with terrestrial SSSIs or duplicate the international designations of special areas of conservation or special protection areas; it does not give English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales the power to designate sites without any further safeguards; it does not give new powers to anyone to prevent development in the marine environment and it certainly does not impose further restrictions on port expansion—most major ports already operate within internationally important wildlife sites; and it does not provide any new powers to constrain existing uses of the marine environment, such as fisheries, except when powers to manage those activities do not exist.
	Hon. Members may find it useful if I gave a couple examples of candidate sites. Worthing lumps is an area which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) probably knows well. It is an expanse of sub-tidal chalk cliff exposures with rich wildlife, including the black tar sponge, leopard-spotted gobies, tompot blennies and, of course, the lesser spotted dogfish. The Bracklesham balls are also off the coast of West Sussex. Sites that have been identified are widely scattered, but those in West Sussex have interesting names. The Bracklesham balls is an area of spherical and hemispherical boulders embedded in the sea bed. It is much beloved of anemones, soft corals, sponges and sea squirts.
	Economic benefits of designating and protecting areas in the marine environment will help to increase fish stocks and tourism revenue and will create safer tourism. For example, I discovered that the diving fraternity is concerned about ghost nets—drifting fishing nets—in which divers can get entangled. Hopefully, the designation will result in those areas being cleaned up.

Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman tell those of us who have not followed the arguments in this field in as much detail as he has why he is introducing separate legislation, rather than including his proposals in the existing SSSI legislation?

John Randall: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear that in fact that was my original intention. However, after consulting all the interested parties, it seemed that terrestrial designation—things like marking the location of a site—is much easier on land than at sea, so a separate designation is more appropriate.
	I am pleased that several Ministers have recently acknowledged the importance of protecting the marine environment; I therefore hope that they will support the provisions in the Bill that do so. During the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Lord Whitty, speaking on behalf of the Government in the House of Lords, said:
	"I accept that there has been a lack of progress on designating marine conservation areas, as compared with land-based ones".
	I agree wholeheartedly with that. Referring to the review of marine nature conservation, Lord Whitty said:
	"We now have the will to pursue an increase in identification and powers to enforce marine conservation areas of all kinds".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 840-41.]
	In March 2001, the Prime Minister said:
	"We will be launching measures to improve marine conservation here and abroad".
	The commitment of the Minister for the Environment is well known, and I should like to thank him on the record for what he is doing for marine conservation. Only on Wednesday evening, at the RSPB's parliamentary reception, which many of my colleagues attended, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), paid tribute to the work that the RSPB and I have done on the Bill. He said that he looked forward to working with me; I certainly look forward to working with him.
	This week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, speaking at the Royal Horticultural Halls, said:
	"Biodiversity too is an area where the new department can make a real difference . . . At least half of our biodiversity is found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine areas around the UK and more widely will be one of our key goals."
	I am happy to find something on which I can agree with the Government wholeheartedly.
	I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity to move towards that key goal. However, I have seen signs in the last 24 hours that seem to suggest that their interest in the marine environment has gone from lukewarm to cold. If that is the case, my colleagues on both sides of the House, our many constituents who have expressed interest in and support for the Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the Government's objection.

Tam Dalyell: Who is the sea squirt that is causing the trouble?

John Randall: I am not sure that it is a sea squirt; I think that it is a much larger beast that is beached a little further down Whitehall. I still hope to persuade the Government to support the Bill, so I do not want to finger anybody at this point, but it may well be a spotted blenny.
	If there are Government objections to the Bill, I should be grateful to be told what they are. I have approached the measure in the mood of trying to consult and make sure that we get good legislation; I do not want bad legislation or something that, perhaps, is thoroughly worthy but causes problems for interest groups. I come from a business background and, as I said at the outset, sometimes regulations do not help the economic environment. If there are problems, such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) with regard to wind farms, I would be willing to discuss them in Committee. If Second Reading is completed, I am sure that many concerns could be looked at; I approach that with an open mind.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend talked about economic interest. Obviously, inshore fisheries are a crucial economic interest. Will he come to that point in a moment? What consultations and discussions has he had with those bodies?

John Randall: By and large, the fisheries have welcomed the Bill because they realise the great importance of conserving fish stocks; it will not be a problem for them in any way. Indeed, the Under–Secretary of State, who has a great deal of expertise in the fisheries directorate—not always the best directorate to be in charge of, hon. Members may agree—said he believes that fisheries will welcome the measure. I am pleased about that.
	I know that many Members wish to speak. Our debate will be interrupted for an important statement and, at a time when we have international concerns and worries, people may feel that marine conservation is not the most important matter. However, conserving our environment for future generations is every bit as important as current problems. I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity to move towards achieving one key goal of their biodiversity policy now. The Bill will allow them to do that and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his good fortune in coming first in the ballot and on all the hard work that he has done to get the Bill to this stage. Let me say very firmly that I hope that it succeeds in getting on to the statute book.
	The United Kingdom has a pretty appalling record of neglecting the natural environment during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the 20th century, we gradually learned how to protect the land, but our record on the sea is still appalling. The view is that we can tip almost anything into it and try to extract anything from it. It is seen as a sort of piggy bank without a bottom, or a dustbin that never has to be emptied. We must change that attitude, and this Bill could achieve much in that regard.
	My hon. Friend the Father of the House referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Along with one or two other hon. Members, he and I kept the Standing Committee that considered the Wildlife and Countryside Bill sitting for long hours. Eventually, we were offered a sop. We were told that, if we finished reasonably early, the idea of marine nature reserves would be included in the Bill. We got that sop, but nothing happened for about 15 years. The Government had the powers, but they did not designate any areas. I think that we now have three designated areas in the United Kingdom. That is a very sad record of inactivity, especially as, under Governments formed by each of the main political parties, we were making pretty good progress on land. As far as the sea was concerned, however, we made virtually no progress at all.
	I do not want to make a long speech, as I am well aware of what is happening today, but I should like to apologise to the Whips Office. In yesterday's business questions, I suggested that the Whips might be plotting to stall the Bill today. I have been working hard to find out what was happening and I am assured that the Whips, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), have been trying very hard during the past three weeks to persuade all the Departments to agree a common-sense approach. Sadly, as I understand it, my hon. Friend has not succeeded. We are likely to hear a series of speeches made in support of the Bill, but it will probably then run out of time. That would be tragic, as I am sure that we could introduce the legislation that is needed via a private Member's Bill. As I understand it, the Government are saying that they want legislation on the matters with which the Bill deals, but perhaps not just yet, and that they need a bit more consultation. Surely consultation can occur as the Bill progresses, and now is the time for the knotty problems to be sorted out.
	Piecing together the situation, I understand that the Ministry of Defence has objected to the Bill, but that those objections have been overcome and we now have its support. Allegedly, there were to be some problems with fishermen, but I understand that their objections have also been overcome. So where is the objection coming from? I am told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is still making objections because it is alleged that people who use high-powered speedboats, go water skiing and so on are worried about the Bill. However, I am sure that negotiations could be conducted to allay their worries. It is very sad that people who have an interest in big boats do not have an interest in ensuring that the beauty of the sea can be conserved.
	I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is worried. I know that offshore oil and gas interests must also be considered—again, there are legitimate needs for pipelines and so on—but surely their concerns could be allayed in negotiations.
	We have heard about people who are promoting wind farms. I very firmly believe in wind farms, but those who promote them seem to be brilliant at destroying public support. I am sure that thousands of people will be absolutely appalled if they believe that the wind farm industry has scuppered the Bill. I do not see why we cannot accommodate those with interests in wind farms. Of course, they will want to build some wind farms in the sea, and I would commend such development, but it should be possible to negotiate some way around the problem. I am told that there is also concern in ports and harbours, but surely it is not beyond the powers of negotiation to meet their needs.
	The final argument that has been put to me concerns devolution. It is suggested that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales are unhappy about the Bill. I would not like the Bill's remit to be reduced to cover England alone, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge would be prepared to consider making such a change if it was necessary to secure its passage. All those groups say that the Bill should be blocked, but they do not have fundamental objections, and the Government have made a commitment that they want the legislation.
	I do not want to take up any more time. My plea now is that we get the Bill into Committee and initiate effective negotiations. I remind the Whips and those who pull their strings that, even if the Committee stage begins and we cannot secure agreement on all the issues, there is still Report and Third Reading. But, please, let us get it moving today.

Colin Breed: I wholeheartedly support the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I welcome the Bill as a contribution to much-needed environmental protection and conservation.
	It is not always necessary to have grand international conferences about environmental conservation measures, which do not always have to be introduced in huge Bills. We can introduce varied legislation that works in the same direction and helps to achieve the ultimate aims. The range of international agreements and national designations needs to be complemented by local initiatives. Private Members' Bills should be given the same support and assistance if we are to achieve the real aim of ensuring the environmental stability that we all want.
	As has been mentioned, the current system of marine conservation in this country is highly inadequate, in contrast to that of conservation on land, where significant progress has been made without some of the perceived problems about which concerns were expressed when legislation was introduced. The Bill would provide much-needed protection for marine sites of special biodiversity interest.
	The sea is extremely important to my constituency. In the fishing ports of Looe and Polperro it makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Sailing takes place from Saltash, Torpoint and Fowey, and there are commercial docks at Fowey and Par. I have not received a single letter from any organisation representing interests in fishing, sailing or ports in objection to the measures, of which I am sure that such organisations have been properly notified.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are also fishing interests in my south-east Essex constituency. Does he agree that small fishermen want a measure such as the Bill, as biodiversity is very much in their interests? They, more than anyone else, want to protect our marine environment.

Colin Breed: That is absolutely correct. Many fishermen are beginning to recognise that their economic livelihood at sea will not depend only on fishing. Leisure interests—especially diving and so on—will provide a significant proportion of their work and income.
	A number of areas in south-east Cornwall could benefit from the Bill, including the Eddystone rocks. Although I have been out to sea above water, I have not ventured down below, but I understand that the rocks are formed by a huge outcrop of pink granite that rises from a level sea bed in a wonderful cliff-like structure that dominates the area. The rocks are extremely important not only to fishermen, but to divers. Like other sites, they should be protected as use of the area increases. Of course, protection assists the continued use of such features. Thus, the ingredients of protection and economic well-being can be married.
	Cornwall has a considerable number of wind farms. Although some may object to wind farms at sea, I suspect that many would prefer wind farm development at sea rather than on land.
	Environmental protection needs to be continued, both on land and at sea. Although we are a long way behind in marine protection, we are not as far advanced in land environmental protection as we would wish. I hope that the Government will not only support the Bill today but, during this parliamentary term, introduce even more legislation to ensure stronger sustainability throughout the UK marine environment.
	The Bill is a useful stepping-stone; it certainly goes in the right direction. Judging from the considerable number of letters that I have had from constituents and other residents of Cornwall, there is significant public interest in this matter. If the Government somehow prevent the Bill from proceeding, people will want clear answers about why that happened.
	We require a broader range of measures to achieve real sustainability of our marine resources, but we must also encourage others in that direction. The Bill deals with measures taken in our territorial waters, but the whole subject of marine conservation needs to be further up not only our agenda but the European agenda as well.
	My final point is about the growing problem of bycatches from fishing, which include porpoises, dolphins, birds, sharks and turtles. Although some of those are protected by law, the number of victims is causing concern because it is increasing, albeit inadvertently. The problem is particularly acute in the south-west approaches. Will the Government consider funding more conservation research to increase our understanding and knowledge of how bycatches occur so that we may find ways of preventing that tragic loss of marine life?
	For now, I wish to give the Bill a warm welcome and I hope that it will be strongly supported today.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on coming first in the ballot for private Members' Bills in this Session and on his choice of topic. My reasons for saying that are particularly strong because of my constituency, Plymouth, Sutton. I am delighted to have a chance to speak in this Second Reading debate.
	I wish to discuss why the subject matter of the Bill is of growing interest and importance to our constituents, particularly those who live in Plymouth and the surrounding areas of Devon, Cornwall and the south-west peninsula. I hope then to relate that to the measures proposed in the Bill.
	To most people, the seas are inaccessible and mysterious. Why should we be concerned about what we cannot see? To those hon. Members present in the Chamber, most of whom are enthusiasts, that may seem anathema, but many people do not understand these matters. They regard the seas as either grey and choppy or, when the tide is out, a load of old mud. We know little about the sea and treat it as an endless cornucopia. It is a treasure chest on the one hand and, as others have said, a carpet under which we can sweep our waste—anything and everything, from human to nuclear waste—on the other.
	We reap but we do not sow. We exploit with little knowledge of what we are doing and of how it might affect the ocean ecosystems, yet 1 cu m of that unattractive load of mud contains the same amount of energy as five Mars bars. All chocoholics, including me, should take an interest in the quality of our marine environment, because seaweed extract is present in much of the chocolate that we eat. As nearly £4 billion of chocolate is eaten every year in Britain alone, we have an interest in ensuring that the environment in which seaweed grows is healthy.
	We need to conserve our coastal waters because they are still richly biodiverse and still have much to offer us. We know that they are essential in the food and reproductive chains that eventually bring us food from the sea. The tiniest organisms, the plankton, have a profound influence on climate and will play an even greater role as changes in global climates accelerate. However, we need to gain a much deeper understanding of how they work; we then need to encourage public appreciation and participation through education.
	If we are to do all of that, we must ensure that the marine environment is conserved—that we hold it as much in trust for tomorrow as we do the atmosphere, and the land mass and its waterways. The United Kingdom is already a world leader in marine-based research, much of which is carried out through a unique partnership in Plymouth—the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership, which is a world leader in research, education and, of course, conservation. It consists of five organisations: the Plymouth Marine Laboratory; the university of Plymouth; the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom; the National Marine Aquarium; and the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science.

Colin Breed: Have those organisations written to the hon. Lady to support the Bill?

Linda Gilroy: I have consulted them, and they are certainly most interested in the Bill and in all the other developments that the Government are pursuing, as well as those that form part of our manifesto commitment to the marine environment. Each organisation is independent, but works closely and often collectively to deliver world-class marine research, education and conservation.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Lady saying that, in her opinion, those organisations would want the Bill to make progress so that the issues can be developed?

Linda Gilroy: I shall come to that in a moment, and to the views of the Devon Wildlife Trust, which has briefed me on matters that affect Plymouth sound in particular.

Tam Dalyell: As a Member of Parliament from the other end of the country, may I just say how excellently the organisations to which my hon. Friend has referred cope with casual visitors? Our family was entranced by what we saw in Plymouth. They are to be congratulated.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he was able to visit the National Marine Aquarium, about which I shall say a few more words in a moment.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she has been most gracious in giving way. I know that she is an avid reader of the Plymouth Evening Herald. Did she see the article that appeared in it the other day about a 30 ft piece of wood on which more than a million goose barnacles were found? I understand that a 3 ft section of it has now been lodged in the National Marine Aquarium and is proving to be one of the strongest visitor attractions.

Linda Gilroy: I have indeed read about that development this week, although I have not been to the marine aquarium recently. However, I hold an annual membership and hope that I can visit it soon. I urge other hon. Members to make the journey to Plymouth, far though it is, to view the Jewels of the Sound exhibition, which has been running this summer. Some hon. Members may already have visited it.
	Plymouth overlooks one of the finest natural harbours in the world and is the largest city on the UK south coast. Its maritime heritage goes back thousands of years. Some of the organisations in the partnership that I mentioned can trace their roots back well over 100 years to the middle of the 19th century. The Plymouth navigation school, which eventually evolved into the Institute of Marine Studies within Plymouth university, was founded in 1862; and the Marine Biological Association of the UK was formed in 1884 and opened its Plymouth laboratory in 1888. The 20th century saw the consolidation of Plymouth as an international centre of excellence in marine research, education and conservation with the formation of the partnership organisations.
	In the 21st century that lead position will be enhanced and developed in the spirit of discovery. Society will need to grapple with the oceans' role in sustainable development, regionally and globally, and the trends in and consequences of climate change.
	The oceans, with an average depth of several kilometres, cover 71 per cent. of the earth's surface. They provide the largest, mostly unexplored, living space on the planet and contribute enormously to global diversity. There is growing awareness of the need to manage the world's seas and their coastlines sustainably to ensure the maintenance of biological diversity and productivity. It is right to try to be at the forefront of developing the best possible framework for the marine conservation that the Bill's promoter envisages.
	Natural stresses and those from our activities are increasingly important through the economic impacts that threaten the quality of life for communities around the world. To monitor, understand and predict those impacts, we must identify the processes and interactions that are involved, and understand the role of the oceans in the global system.
	Oceans play a crucial role in many natural cycles and processes that support life on earth, controlling global weather patterns and key chemical processes in the atmosphere. The oceans sustain and dictate the shape of life on earth. However, to study, we must be able to conserve and vice versa. The Bill is therefore especially relevant to my constituency and the people who live and earn their living in it.
	Independent organisations from the research, academic and education sectors in Plymouth have come together to pool expertise and resources and to increase understanding of the many questions that will help us to appreciate fully the operation of marine systems and how we can sustainably use them. That includes the identification, development and exploitation of alternative energy sources. I was interested in the points that hon. Members made earlier about renewable energy. That is of special interest to Plymouth, which has dramatic sites where such developments could occur. Some people in Plymouth have an ambition to make it the first city to become carbon neutral. Hon. Members who understand such matters will realise the extent of that challenge.
	Indeed, if it was not already possible to claim that Plymouth is now the focal point of marine sciences in the UK, it soon will be, especially as it continues to extend its influence and breadth of interest. An exciting new development is the proposed national centre for marine science and technology, which will bring the partnership together on a single site in Plymouth. This will greatly enhance the ability of the separate organisations to work together to unravel the mysteries. That will lead to greater knowledge of the oceans and how humans can interact with them without destroying them.
	The centre will have a strong emphasis on outreach work in the community, drawing on the expertise of the National Marine Aquarium and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. The new centre could become a focal point for the popular as well as the academic interpretation of the sort of marine sites that the Bill covers.
	There are already strong links between the National Marine Aquarium and the renowned Eden project in Cornwall. That visitor centre is becoming a focal point for people to appreciate land-based biodiversity in all its glory. So, too, could the marine science centre build on the sound base that the National Marine Aquarium established, and prove an enjoyable and attractive showcase for the challenges of climate change, and the link between our use of energy and floods, tides, the sea and all that lies within it.
	That is a major project of considerable vision and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will take an interest in it. It could have great relevance to the Bill's provisions and to their environmentally responsible interpretation by the world at large. One of the centre's major aims is to inspire and encourage nine to 13-year-olds to take an interest in marine science and technology issues and careers.
	The centre is the subject of a major bid to the Treasury for money from the capital modernisation fund. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to lend his support to such an important scheme when it is considered by his colleagues. I know that he will understand that the technological spin-offs of such a centre can generate employment output similar to that from our successful Tamar science park. In addition to building on the experience of the National Marine Aquarium, the centre will also have at its disposal the experience of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. It undertakes numerous projects that are linked to marine conservation and would be enhanced by the provisions that the Bill proposes. The laboratory's biodiversity group has a long and active involvement with nature conservation agencies in the United Kingdom.
	In the marine environment, too little is currently known about the distribution of species and habitats for researchers to employ methods commonly used in terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Part of the laboratory's role is to contribute to understanding the distribution of species and habitats in nature and how they are affected by man's activities. The main thrust of its work is to develop methods and techniques that are useful to those who do the work that the Bill envisages, or those with regulatory responsibilities for the conservation of marine and estuarine areas.
	The methods that the laboratory has developed are widely used by the Environment Agency, English Nature, wildlife trusts and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science as well as environmental consultancy companies and universities. Those methods and the associated training are marketed successfully by a spin-out company and continue to be developed as part of the laboratory's continuing core programme. The prospects for that company will be enhanced by the Bill.
	The laboratory is currently celebrating because, in the past month, the National Environmental Research Council has unanimously approved its business plan for the next five years. After a difficult period, staff are excited by the prospects for their science and the exploitation of their intellectual property.
	Successive Governments have already done much on marine conservation. Some hon. Members have already referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and its weaknesses. There is no statutory basis for regulatory bodies that operate in the marine environment; they rely on voluntary consensus and tend to be established in areas where human activities and impacts are remote or non-existent.
	In addition, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 provide for establishing special areas of conservation and special protection areas. The habitats directive is Europe's most important nature conservation measure, creating a range of safeguards for the Community's most endangered plant and animal species.
	The Government's commitment to improve habitat conservation is being developed through the directive, with the help of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is due to report to DEFRA in March 2002. It is important that the Bill takes account of that work, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us today that that will be possible. I also hope that he will comment on the work of the review working group, which was established in 1999 to evaluate the success of previous nature conservation measures, and the resultant pilot project.
	The Prime Minister announced on 6 March in his speech, "Environment—the Next Steps" that the Government are committed to launching measures to improve marine conservation at home and abroad, including a series of marine stewardship reports. The first report will set out the Government's goal for integrated and sustainable management of the marine environment across the range of marine sectors. As I have said, a commitment to improve marine conservation overseas and in the UK was made in the manifesto.
	I want to consider some of the Bill's possible implications for Plymouth. I am indebted to the Devon Wildlife Trust for a specific briefing on that. It is especially keen for the voice of Devon's Members of Parliament to be heard, and I am sure that it would also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). It has pointed out that, with the exception of two, the constituencies of all Devon Members of Parliament border the sea, and that the coast is a natural capital asset essential to tourism in the whole county. No other county has two discrete and very different coastlines to protect. I hesitate to say this, as I look at the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall, but I think that there is a marked contrast between the north and south coasts of Devon, whereas the coastlines of Cornwall have many more similarities.
	The Devon Wildlife Trust has been active in marine conservation for many years. It has a team of marine experts second to none in the country; it regularly conducts sea bed surveys and monitoring in support of its marine conservation programmes; it runs two voluntary marine conservation areas at Wembury near Plymouth and on the north Devon coast around Ilfracombe; it has been involved in the Lyme bay reefs project for many years; and it has been instrumental in drawing up and agreeing voluntary conservation measures with local fishermen to protect two of the reefs, Lanes Ground and Saw Tooth Ledges. It is currently working on a similar initiative for Beer Home Ground, and supports a large team of volunteers working on the seaquest south-west project to report sightings of marine megafauna. It is in the process of developing an "estuaries for life" project for the conservation of these special habitats. Richard White, its marine conservation manager, will be well known to those who follow Select Committee inquiries into reform of the common fisheries policy.
	The trust tells me that the marine life of Plymouth sound and the approaches has been well studied, and the presence of the Marine Biological Association, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the university of Plymouth ensures that valuable research work continues in this area. As well as work on the shore, underwater surveys are also carried out. Indeed, some of the earliest diving surveys were carried out in Wembury bay adjacent to Plymouth.
	In 1993, the Devon Wildlife Trust carried out a survey to fill gaps in the knowledge of this important area, which reported:
	"Plymouth Sound and its approaches were found to possess a wide variety of habitat types many of which are of high nature conservation importance."
	A number of species were found that are rare in the UK, or at the limit of their natural distribution in UK waters, including seaweeds, sea slug, the yellow trumpet anemone and soft corals such as the pink sea fan. Those species were found among rich and diverse plant and animal communities. In addition to the importance of the area's marine wildlife, the estuary complex of the Tamar is valuable in its own right, providing an important feeding and breeding area for large numbers of waders and wildfowl.
	The international conservation value of the wildlife in Plymouth sound and the surrounding estuaries is recognised by its designation as a European marine site under both the birds directive and the habitats and species directive.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Lady mentioned wildfowl and other species. What sort of wildfowl is she talking about in particular?

Linda Gilroy: There is a wide range of wildfowl. As a result of these designations, English Nature has drawn up conservation objectives for the area.

Henry Bellingham: Does the hon. Lady not know?

Linda Gilroy: I do, but I am not going to stop.
	Those objectives are implemented through a combination of management plans for the Tamar estuaries complex, the Wembury voluntary marine conservation area and the Yealm estuary, which together cover the geographical extent of the European marine site. The Devon Wildlife Trust sits on the advisory groups for the management of the Tamar and Yealm estuaries, and manages the Wembury voluntary marine conservation area.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) made an important point about wildfowl. It would be helpful if you could explain to the House which wildfowl you are talking about and how you feel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to other hon. Members in the third person.

Linda Gilroy: As I said, these points were made to me by the Devon Wildlife Trust. My key interest in this subject arises from my close association with the National Marine Aquarium. I am more familiar with the flora and fauna in the sound, but I trust that through my developing association with the Devon Wildlife Trust I will learn a great deal more about the birdlife in both estuaries that surround my constituency.
	The Bill establishes a framework for the notification of sites of importance for marine biodiversity, geology or physiography, and for the setting of conservation objectives for those sites. The Bill is unlikely to have any effect on the management of those areas of Plymouth sound already designated as European marine sites. The initial designation excluded some important habitat features, but a recent review has addressed that problem, so current conservation objectives cover all key marine habitats in the area.
	However, the Bill would allow the notification of some important areas of rocky reef habitat in the approaches to Plymouth sound that fall outside the current boundaries of the European marine site. The reef habitats support some unique seabed communities, and include dense beds of pink sea fan, which is a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. As a result, the wildlife trusts have suggested an extension of the proposed boundaries in our response to the original Government consultation on the designation of coastal and marine sites in 1995.
	The Bill would enable English Nature to notify and set conservation objectives for those sites that remain outside the current boundaries of the European marine site. In the wider context, the Bill would enable the notification of new marine sites of importance for biodiversity, and as such would add to the effectiveness of site-based conservation in the marine environment. However, there are limits to what could be achieved by this site-based approach alone, and a wider approach to marine management is required. In addition, we have seen in Devon that the emphasis on specific sites has tended to divert resources from other areas that are just as important for biodiversity, but which fall outside the network of protected sites.
	The wildlife trusts, including the Devon Wildlife Trust, are calling for a significant improvement in the way we manage the activities and demands that we make on the marine environment. Ideally they would like the Government to publish a White Paper on an integrated approach to marine policy and management. An aspect of that approach would be a marine Act to provide the framework for legislation to manage our use of marine resources and provide protection for wildlife and habitats. Such a new approach would improve on previous regulation by integrating the management of the full range of activities that take place at sea, to which a number of hon. Members have referred.
	The trusts see the Bill, which aims to protect wildlife and habitats within territorial waters, as one step towards achieving the wide range of improvements that are needed if our seas are to receive the protection and management they deserve. I look forward to discussing with them the outcome of today's debate.
	I hope, too, that the trusts will confirm that there could be some benefit in protecting seahorses, which I am keen to see. The National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth is home to the largest collection of seahorse species in the world. Working in collaboration with the university of Plymouth, the NMA carries out research into the diets and consequent growth of seahorses with a view to captive breeding and rearing as a means of eventually minimising the pressure on wild specimens that results from the oriental medicine trade and other forms of exploitation.
	Seahorses are particularly susceptible to disturbance of coastal habitats, as they are generally regarded as shallow water species with restricted habitat preferences, such as sea grass beds. The status of the two UK seahorse species is largely unknown, although it is generally felt that they are threatened by a variety of human actions that affect coastal waters. The two species are Hippocampus hippocampus, the short-snouted seahorse, and Hippocampus guttulatus, the long-snouted seahorse.
	The south-west region is geographically one of the UK's largest and most sparse. It contains 60 per cent. of England's heritage coastline. It is one of the most rapidly growing regions, due largely to inward migration arising from its attractive environment. We have two national parks on land and parts or all of 12 areas of outstanding natural beauty. Almost a quarter of England's listed buildings are there, as well as more than 1,200 conservation areas. Parts of the region have been designated as special protection areas because of the wildlife and wetlands found there.
	Developing the infrastructure for marine conservation can only further enhance the environmental attractions of our region. Indeed, the environment has been identified as one of the key drivers of the regional economy from a number of perspectives. Undoubtedly, a strength of the region is the attraction that a good-quality environment generates, both in its direct impact on tourism and as an attractive location for business.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Lady mentions SSSIs in Devon. Which ones does she have in mind in particular?

Linda Gilroy: The flatlands around Torbay. I have forgotten their exact name at the moment, but, as I have said, the marine environment represents the main thrust of the Bill and my interest. I am also representing the views that the Devon Wildlife Trust has expressed to me, and I look forward to developing with the trust a greater knowledge of those wetlands and the birdlife in my area. I have been birdwatching only once in Devon, when I visited the birdwatching area at Dawlish warren, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar.

Virginia Bottomley: Does the hon. Lady support the Bill; or, having spoken for 30 minutes, is she really trying to talk it out?

Linda Gilroy: I have almost reached a conclusion. I have been representing very significant interests, as the right hon. Lady will understand, and trying to outline the Bill's impact on my constituency. I will come to my position on the Bill in my concluding remarks, which will be heard very shortly.
	Some assessments rate the environmental protection industry as second in potential only to the information and communications technology industry. Ensuring and contributing to sustainable development is a key role for all of us, and I welcome the opportunity that debating the Bill offers to explore how we can make progress on issues of exceptional interest and importance to my constituency. I am sure that the Bill's promoter and, indeed, the Minister will be welcomed if they visit my constituency to find out more about why many people now regard Plymouth as the United Kingdom and European centre for marine science and technology.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge is to be congratulated on his choice of Bill. I am sorry not to see him in his place. [Hon. Members: "He is here."] I beg his pardon. I am particularly pleased that he chose the Bill. He may remember the number that he selected in the ballot. He selected the number that I try to obtain in each ballot—usually successfully—but he just pipped me to the post this year. It was the number that secured me a place in the ballot during the first Session of the first Parliament in which I served. That, of course, involved me in the ill-fated Fireworks Bill, which has the doubtful privilege of holding the record for being the Bill that most nearly reached the statute book without actually doing so, as the last two technical amendments were being debated on its Report stage from the House of Lords when it was talked out. I wish the hon. Gentleman's Bill a better fate.

Virginia Bottomley: I, too, warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his success in the ballot and, indeed, on his selection of subject. It is a matter of very great importance. I do not wish him to misunderstand my support—I am not demonstrating such abject support simply because he is my Whip. I wondered whether the Whips had anything to do with speech made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), because we have read much in the newspapers this week about the activities of Whips in political parties, but my support for the Bill is heartfelt and sincere.
	Like the hon. Lady, I also have a strong constituency interest. Given that Surrey is landlocked, it might not be thought of as an immediately obvious marine site, but when I became a Member of Parliament the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences had its headquarters in Wormley. I am sorry that it took sight of its new Member of Parliament and moved to Southampton, but Sir Anthony Laughton and his team were extremely vigorous in their campaigning for such subjects. Of course, the institute continues to make an extremely important contribution.
	I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned the Eden project, because one of the key aims of many of those Millennium Commission projects was, in fact, to promote sustainability and the environment. I include not only the Eden project, but many of the new forests and cycleways, and even the ill-fated dome, before it was given a dose of new Labour rhetoric, was actually a regeneration project. But the message of regeneration and protecting the environment for the new millennium echoes widely in the wider community.
	The primary reason why I am so energetic about such issues is that I have the privilege to have in my constituency the United Kingdom headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund. It has made a very important contribution in raising the priority given to this subject. Robert Napier, its chief executive, leads an excellent team. I particularly mention its communications director, Perdita Hunt, an extremely good lobbyist who ensures that this subject and others are given the priority that they deserve in the House.
	The WWF has been calling for some time for a significant improvement in the management of the marine environment and for the delivery of an ecosystem-wide approach. It believes that an aspect of that approach is strong legislation to protect our marine wildlife and the habitats on which it is dependent. In its view, it is also important to integrate that protection with improved legislation for the management of the wider marine environment, as that will ensure that the seas are healthy and clean.
	In the WWF's judgment, the Bill provides an opportunity to stimulate parliamentary debate on the need for greater protection and management of the marine environment. It thinks that the protection that the Bill would enforce would be important to species and habitats in the territorial waters of England and Wales. Like others, it thinks that the Bill represents a first step in forging a new approach to the management of our marine environment and the economic and social resources that we gain from it. The idea that the Bill represents a first step is widely echoed.
	Again, like the hon. Lady, I congratulate the wildlife trusts on their work. Surrey Wildlife Trust acknowledges the perhaps apparent anomaly in its position. It says:
	"Although at first glance, this may not seem to be an issue of direct impact to the residents of Surrey, we should not overlook the impact of our lifestyle on our coastal waters, nor that many Surrey residents will be regular visitors to our beaches."
	I was extremely worried to hear that one of the obstacles to the passage of the Bill is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that it does not think that fast motorboats, jet skis and water skiing justify preventing the Bill from reaching the statute book. As someone who always spends her holidays in this country and on the Isle of Wight, in a marine environment, I hope that the DCMS will certainly tell the jet skiers, water skiers and others to leave our shores, but that view may just be a reflection of my age.
	The Surrey Wildlife Trust argues that this country's system of marine conservation is extraordinarily inadequate. The Bill would provide much-needed protection to the special diversity interest of marine sites. The trust wants the Government to go further to ensure sustainability throughout the United Kingdom's marine environment and to introduce additional measures that meet those wider needs. However, it believes that the Bill should be viewed as a useful stepping-stone towards a much broader range of measures that will be required to achieve the sustainable use of marine resources.
	I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is now widely appreciated that the British isles comprise island nations with a maritime heritage of which they can be proud. They also possess one of the highest diversities of marine habitats and species in any European country. It is time for the legislation that protects the marine environment to catch up with some of the interesting and important improvements in land protection.
	The Minister will be well aware that, in my earlier days as a junior Environment Minister, I had some involvement in the SSSI programme. My primary concern on SSSIs now is that the A3 improvement at Hindhead should continue to ensure that that SSSI gets the protection that it needs.
	Before I am called to order for straying from the subject, let me wish my hon. Friend's Bill well. I know he will be disappointed that I did not mention Worthing lumps, but I suspect that others can refer to them with more knowledge than I can.
	At a time when there is often cynicism about what we debate in Parliament, and a lack of interest, many of our priorities do not seem to reflect the priorities of our generation. I think that the Bill has an important future in terms of the stewardship of our planet and the sustainability of our marine areas, and I hope that all Members will support it.

Tam Dalyell: I want to follow the important speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I hope that, even at this late stage, inquiries can be made into who is behind the failure to grasp the opportunity to do something about an issue that we all want something to be done about.
	To establish my credentials, let me quote from Hansard of 27 November 1962. The passage is headed "British Territorial Waters (Undersea Development)". In Question 3 to the Prime Minister, I asked whether he would
	"appoint a Minister responsible for development underneath the sea within British territorial waters".
	Harold Macmillan replied "No, Sir."
	Then I asked a very stupid question:
	"In the light of the remarkable breaks through in marine science, is not the Prime Minister prepared to look into the future and, so to speak, beyond his own nose"—

Stephen Pound: Young puppy!

Tam Dalyell: Exactly.
	I asked the Prime Minister to
	"recognise that here is a vast potential for British exploitation in a completely new sphere of industry".
	I earnestly went on:
	"In particular, will not he consider the possible manufacture of marine equipment for the new sciences in areas such as the north-east of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland?"
	Well, I was a young puppy.

Stephen Pound: Insolent, too.

Tam Dalyell: Insolent—cheeky.

Stephen Pound: No change, then.

Tam Dalyell: I was put in my place. Harold Macmillan got up and said—in an accent that I cannot imitate—
	"This is not a question of looking beyond one's own nose; it is a question of looking three miles under the sea."
	The House erupted at my expense.
	The Prime Minister went on to give a serious answer. He said:
	"I do not think that it would really help to have a single Minister in charge of these very varied methods of exploiting mineral power."
	Sir James Duncan—now departed—asked:
	"Would it not be enough to put the Minister of Agriculture into a skin-diver's suit?"
	Macmillan replied:
	"We must not impose undue strains on Ministers."—[Official Report, 27 November 1962; Vol. 668, c. 203.]
	To complete the tale, I should say that the leader of the Labour party, Hugh Gaitskell, was not at all pleased. He said that that would teach me not to ask silly questions. It was the last silly question I asked in the House.
	There is, however, a serious aspect to this. May I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—although I shall express them less eloquently than he did? We naturally understand what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to whom a great deal of credit is due, has tried to do, and it is clear that a great many people have worked hard on this, not least the Department. If the Department is prepared to work hard and we all agree that something must be done, surely something should be done. It may not be perfect, but what on earth are House of Commons Committee stages for? Their purpose is to iron out, to allow negotiation, and to get it right.
	Given the shortage of parliamentary time, I do not know whether there will ever be another opportunity in the foreseeable future for us to do what we think has to be done very soon. Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I beg those in charge, before 2.30 pm, to go to those who are objecting and say "Do you really know all the facts? Even if you think you do, are you entitled to put a stop to parliamentary discussion on a Bill proposed by the person who has come top of the so-called lottery?"
	Responsible Bills should not be snuffed out if they are in the top five. That makes a mockery of private Members' time. I plead with those in charge to go back to Downing street, or wherever it is, and say, "For heaven's sake, change your mind. Let the House of Commons have discussions." If, at the end of the day, the position is not satisfactory, that is an entirely different matter; but the Bill should certainly not be snuffed out at this stage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that he and I, Lord Hardy of Wath—as he now is—and Ted Graham, led by Denis Howell, had spent hours in Committee speaking at enormous length about Halvergate marshes and a number of other important subjects in order to wring out of Hector Monro and Tom King the principle of marine nature reserves. I do not think that Tom King would recall it any differently. Those in charge became exasperated. They did not want a closure on the Floor of the House, or a guillotine. Eventually, they gave way—quite honourably, but they gave way.
	As my hon. Friend said, MNRs have been a terrible disappointment. Earlier I interrupted the hon. Member for Uxbridge, and I will tell him why. An MNR was proposed at Loch Sween, a beautiful loch in Argyllshire. It was ideal, almost top of the list, for an MNR.
	Some years after the debate to which I have referred, I went to Loch Sween as a paying spouse with an annual visitation from the Historic Buildings Council of Scotland, of which my wife was a member. Late at night we had a reception, and after a good deal of conviviality it became clear why the MNR at Loch Sween had not gone ahead. In their cups, the locals said "Of course we do not want a marine nature reserve here. If we have one, inspectors will come." I asked "Which inspectors?" They said "The inspectors from the Inland Revenue." They did not want the tax men messing around Loch Sween, poking their noses into their business and asking awkward questions.
	There are all sorts of extraneous reasons why MNRs may not have gone ahead. I hope that, following the introduction of the Bill, sense will prevail, and a great deal of trouble will be taken in proceeding with this worthwhile concept. It is vital for fish stocks, and for a number of other reasons eloquently deployed by the hon. Gentleman.

Sydney Chapman: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I was delighted to hear his Macmillanesque comments of 39 years ago.
	I want to speak briefly—I realise that my speech will soon be interrupted—to support my hon. Friend the Member for landlocked Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his excellent Bill, the purpose of which, to put it simply, is to establish, protect and manage nationally important marine areas.
	Of the 6,500 SSSIs, only about 300 border seas or estuarial levels, and even they do not go beyond the low tide. I believe that there is an urgent need for marine sites of special interest to be protected. I appreciate that the Bill is confined to England and Wales.
	It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Armed Forces (Deployment)

Adam Ingram: The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in Oman. Earlier this morning, he spoke to the officers and men of headquarters 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines serving in Oman as part of Exercise Saif Sareea 2. I shall inform the House of what he said to them, but first let me say a word or two about Exercise Saif Sareea 2.
	The exercise in Oman is reaching its conclusion. Although a full assessment has still to be undertaken, it is fair to say that the exercise has been remarkably successful. More than 21,500 service men and women have been involved, and I pay tribute to them. Their response to Exercise Saif Sareea was typical: for many, it was their first deployment in desert conditions, but they rose to the challenge and met the very high standards that we ask of them. Their skills, determination and professionalism place our armed forces among the very best in the world.
	Exercise Saif Sareea 2 was the largest single deployment of British service personnel since the Gulf conflict. Our contribution to the exercise included a naval carrier task group, armoured and commando brigades, about 50 combat aircraft, and three of our four new C17 strategic lift aircraft. The exercise has demonstrated our close friendship with Oman and builds on the long-standing and wide-ranging defence relationship that we enjoy with that country.
	We are extremely grateful to Oman for its generosity in hosting the exercise and for the tremendous co-operation at all levels that has developed between our respective armed forces. Force integration training has taken place between our respective navies and air forces and a joint live exercise comprising elements of our respective armies is now drawing to its conclusion. The exercise has proved to be an excellent opportunity to test both our personnel and our equipment in the realistic operational environment of the Omani desert.
	By deploying, sustaining and exercising a joint taskforce of medium scale at considerable distance, we have demonstrated key elements of the joint rapid reaction forces concept. Moreover, we have demonstrated our ability to conduct joint and combined operations with a friendly nation in an area that is of key strategic importance. When we began planning Exercise Saif Sareea 2 some four years ago, we wanted to send a clear signal of our commitment to peace and stability in the region. I am sure that the whole House agrees that, through the dedication and skill of our armed forces, we have met that objective with enormous success.
	There has been a great deal of speculation in recent weeks—most of it ill-judged and unhelpful—about diverting our forces taking part in Exercise Saif Sareea 2 to conduct operations in and around Afghanistan. We did reassign two submarines from the exercise but, as I hope I made clear earlier, Saif Sareea 2 went ahead essentially as planned. With the end of the exercise in sight, the time has come to decide what force deployments offer the right balance of capabilities to enable us to continue to play a full part in the coalition's military operations. We have rightly made a commitment to our closest ally, the United States, to stand shoulder to shoulder with that nation, and we are determined to do just that.
	The House will know that our armed forces have already made a major contribution to the coalition against international terrorism. When the House last debated this grave subject on 16 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence described our campaign aims. They remain as follows: to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice; to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat; and to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism.
	At that time, my right hon. Friend also described the forces that we have deployed so far. They are considerable: three submarines and 10 specialized air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance aircraft. The roles that those forces have played, both in attacking targets in Afghanistan and in providing vital support functions to coalition strike aircraft, remain crucial. So, too, does our decision to allow the United States to use our air base at Diego Garcia.
	We must now look ahead to how else we can help in defeating international terrorism. Our current forces are primarily configured to assist in the coalition's air campaign. That campaign will continue and develop over time and so must the capabilities that we assign to it. We have therefore decided to create a large and rebalanced force in the region.
	That force is a concrete demonstration of our resolve to see the campaign against international terrorism through to the end. We have said that we are in this for the long haul, and we mean it. The force has therefore been designed to ensure that we are well placed to deal with a wide range of contingencies and to maintain operational flexibility for as long as necessary. It also allows us to accommodate the inevitable changes in the tempo of our military operations.
	As I am sure the House recognises, I cannot go into too much detail about how we envisage the new force operating, but as I have said, it will allow us to retain considerable operational flexibility and will greatly widen the scope for future operations. What I can do is describe the forces that we will reassign to Operation Veritas from Exercise Saif Sareea 2 when the exercise finishes next week.
	Those forces will comprise the following: the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, which will be re-equipped for helicopter operations; the assault ship HMS Fearless; a submarine presence able to launch Tomahawk missiles; the destroyer HMS Southampton; the frigate HMS Cornwall; seven Royal Fleet Auxiliaries—the RFAs Sir Tristram, Sir Percivale, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie, Bayleaf, Brambleleaf and Diligence; and four additional support aircraft consisting of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and Hercules transport planes.
	In addition, some 200 men of 40 Commando Royal Marines, based in Taunton, will be aboard HMS Fearless as the lead elements of an immediately available force to help support operations. The remainder of 40 Commando—about 400 men—will return to the United Kingdom, but will be held at a high readiness to return to the theatre should our operational needs make that necessary. That arrangement will also permit us to rotate companies aboard ship and so guarantee that the whole Commando remains fresh and fully prepared for operations. That powerful force totals some 4,200 personnel in theatre. It represents a major enhancement of the coalition's capabilities.
	The threat from an enemy as evil and indiscriminate as international terrorism places everyone in danger. There is no question but that a response to the events of 11 September is necessary. However, we did not take the decision to deploy those forces lightly. No Government ever enter into military operations, with the attendant risks for our service men and women, without the most careful thought.
	In the current case, we are especially conscious that the reinforcements are men and women who have already completed a long and demanding exercise, and they have long been separated from their families in this country. I know that that places a great strain on both our service personnel and their families. The knowledge that loved ones are deploying on operations can only increase the anxiety, concern and strain that the service families affected must feel. We will do whatever we can to ensure that those families have the support that they need at this time.
	The House will recognise that the deployment of our armed forces is a grave step. We take it in the confident knowledge that by doing so we can depend upon them to make a difference. Our armed forces are special and we are deservedly proud of them. We ask a lot from them and they will not let us down.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Minister for his statement and his courtesy in supplying a copy in advance.
	I fully understand why the Secretary of State cannot be here. His visit to Oman is extremely important and obviously his visit to Saif Sareea is appreciated. Let me first reaffirm the Opposition's support for the Government's continued resolve and determination to change the Taliban Government so that they cease to sustain terrorism, root out their al-Qaeda allies and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. To falter would send a fatal signal of encouragement to the terrorists and those who sustain them, not just in Afghanistan, but around the world.
	The Government have taken a serious step. Nevertheless, it is merely a decision to maintain a range of military options. Will the Minister confirm that no decisions about large-scale operational deployments in Afghanistan have been made? Will the Government reassure the House that any such decisions to commit to ground operations in Afghanistan will be based on concrete intelligence and clear and achievable objectives, thereby enabling them to define and maintain clear operational aims?
	Her Majesty's Opposition will not compromise the safety of our troops by inviting irresponsible speculation, but will the Minister comment on statements given to The New York Times by the Chief of the Defence Staff about the nature of the operations envisaged, which he said might extend to many weeks at a time?
	The Secretary of State for International Development has referred to the possible creation of so-called safe areas to assist the aid effort in Afghanistan. If that is part of the plan, is the Minister aware of the aid agencies' concern about the militarisation of the aid programme and that we must therefore win them over on that point if the strategy is to succeed?
	I also welcome the Minister's reassurance that the military personnel concerned will not be left in limbo for a lengthy period, thousands of miles from their families and long after they were due to go home. If the deployment proves to be lengthy, do we have the capacity to provide for leave and will replacement forces be available when needed?
	What facilities will be provided for the personnel deployed so that they can have full and regular access to telephone and e-mail contact with their families? Will the Minister confirm that every effort will be made to keep their families fully informed ahead of any announcements in the press? He will be aware of how perplexing it is when it appears that the press knows far more than those whose lives are so directly affected. I understand that families have been contacted in advance of the statement, but it follows a lengthy period of speculation which must have been extremely difficult for them.
	I congratulate members of the armed forces who have made Exercise Saif Sareea such a success. Does the Minister agree that there are lessons to be learned that are of particular relevance to the logistics of a possible troop deployment in Afghanistan, and that the exercise has, as he said, also proved both the UK's capability to deploy considerable military force over very long distances and, yet again, the sheer prowess and professionalism of our armed forces? We have faith in them. We admire and are proud of them. They deserve nothing less than the unreserved support of the House.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments and his closing sentiments. He raised a number of questions, which I shall deal with in turn.
	I can confirm that there has been no decision for a large-scale deployment. If there is a change to that, clearly it would be based on best intelligence and what benefits could flow from such a deployment. That is how we have tackled the range of decisions that we have had to take on the campaign as it has developed.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the comments by the Chief of the Defence Staff in an article in The New York Times. He was rightly pointing up the changing nature of the tempo of operations and that those operations could continue for weeks at a time or be brief action. I said in my opening statement that it would be inappropriate to go into any detail on that, and the Chief of the Defence Staff did not do so in his comments to The New York Times. He rightly pointed out the nature of the way in which operations are likely to develop.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the humanitarian problem and comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. There is no question but that the humanitarian problem is deep and difficult, especially for those in the area who seek to find answers and for those in the United Nations and the countries that seek to provide aid who work alongside them in the immediate area and elsewhere. The associated problem is the way in which the Taliban are frustrating so much of the movement of humanitarian aid through the country. We must ensure that there is a better environment into which to deliver the aid.
	As I have made clear, the military objectives will continue. Those are the main objectives of the coalition and I have set out what we are seeking to achieve, but we are highly conscious of the importance of the humanitarian problem and the very scale of it.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about leaving the military in limbo. I can give him assurances on that. We shall do our best to replace troops, given the tempo of operations as they develop, which is why 400 commandos have been returned. They will be able periodically to replace those on board, which is part of the underlying principle.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised a question relating to the full welfare package which will be applied. We have made a great deal of effort to try to improve that welfare package so that those out in theatre, whether on exercise or actively deployed, can remain in close communication with their families. However, there will be times when that is simply not possible. Therefore, there is an onus on commanding officers and those who provide welfare support back home to ensure that the families are aware of what is happening.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about unhelpful speculation. The Secretary of State, to whom I have spoken this morning, made the same point to me. The press and media speculate about the numbers going in and what they will do, but there seems to be an ignorance of the reality of what happens when such comments are made. They can impact adversely on the families back home. I wish that the media would remember what speculation in the television studios and in print means to those of whom we ask so much.
	There are lessons to be learned from Saif Sareea 2. It was a major exercise and it is important to refer to it. Many lessons will be learned and we can build on what we have drawn from the exercise.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his statement in advance.
	I returned from Oman in the early hours of yesterday morning and I join the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), and the Minister in paying tribute to our forces there. I can tell the House that they are in good order and aware of the tasks that may be required of them. They and their families will welcome this morning's announcement because it will give them an idea of what their immediate future holds, but I must tell the Minister that they have a number of serious concerns about their equipment and I want to raise those with him.
	First, after visiting 3 Commando in the desert, I must tell the House that a number of its members are sadly suffering from trench foot, because they have not been issued with desert boots. They were told that they could buy some, but they would not be issued. Can the Minister give an assurance that if they find themselves going into action in Afghanistan and if they require additional kit and equipment, they will have access to that and it will be given to them?
	Secondly, there remains a grave concern about the SA80 rifle. It is well known that it has a problem in dusty and in cold conditions. It may be that both are experienced in action. Given that the Army has acquired a number of modified SA80s, which we understand are better, will they be available to the forces if required?
	Finally, there has been a great deal of concern about the use of cluster bombs in the campaign. Given that they can cause a danger not only to civilians but to our own forces, which may occupy areas where they have been used, can the Minister give an assurance that we shall not deploy cluster bombs? Can he assess whether it would be possible for the Americans to use an alternative weapon?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. He raised a number of issues specifically on equipment. I will give him this assurance: if our troops are being actively deployed in Afghanistan, they will be given the equipment that they need to carry out any action that they take on our behalf. I shall not enter into debate about desert boots. I, too, was in Oman a few weeks ago and I received a slightly different message, so we have lessons to learn. His question deals with the specifics of that particular exercise, which is different from operational deployment.
	On the SA80 rifle and the SA80 mark 2, a modified rifle that the hon. Gentleman understands is better, I give him an absolute assurance that the weapon has been tried and tested in all extreme conditions—not by politicians, but by soldiers. They give me the absolute assurance that it is a first-class rifle. It will be made available to those in the field; we have sufficient numbers to do so.
	On cluster bombs, I remind the House that this is a military campaign. Cluster bombs are part of the targeting approach being adopted by the coalition forces. The United States is dropping material that contains submunitions. They are targeted specifically: the particular weapons being used are optimised for use against armour and vehicles, usually in very concentrated numbers. That is the purpose. There is a threat on the ground, and that is how it has been judged best to tackle that.
	I understand the sensitivity of the matter, but I again remind all right hon. and hon. Members that this is a military campaign. We are seeking to achieve a military objective. I know that people keep saying it, but we must never forget what happened on 11 September and what could have happened on that day: many more people—tens of thousands—could have lost their lives. The intent of that particular terrorist organisation is to carry forward their attacks on our people.

Stuart Bell: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the deployment of British troops at any time is a grave step. Therefore, the House should reflect that and be in a sombre mood.
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement has the massive support of my constituents in Middlesbrough, of the people of Teesside and of the people in our country, and that the Government's approach and determination to eradicate and eliminate global-reach, state-sponsored terrorism is right and proper? Is it not right to communicate that majority view, that massive view, in our country to those in our armed forces who are serving now and who may serve in future? Although there may be dissident and siren voices who are entitled to be heard, they should be washed out in the clamour of support for our armed services.

Adam Ingram: I know that my hon. Friend will accept that I deeply hold the sentiments that he has expressed, and I have expressed them over recent days. It is a grave step to deploy our armed forces, whether for this country alone or as part of a coalition.
	There is massive support within this country and internationally for our objectives. Everyone has realised the enormity of what we are facing. If some have not understood that, they should just examine what happened on 11 September and what flows from that. There is a need for all of us who recognise the very valuable role played by our armed forces to keep repeating that point, not just for those who are on the front line and who may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice, but for the families in and around the areas from where the troops are deployed. They need our support; they need our genuine comfort at this time. That is why I mentioned in my statement the need to ensure that we give maximum support to families, too.

Nicholas Soames: While we all welcome the Minister's statement, does he agree that what he has announced is nothing more than a rebalancing of an existing force, when most of us had hoped that he might be coming to the House to announce a significant stepping-up in the tempo of operations and, indeed, the deployment of forces on the ground?
	What has happened to HMS Ocean, the new commando carrier, which one would have expected to play a significant role? Why is it necessary to convert HMS Illustrious to a helicopter-carrying as well as Harrier-carrying ship? What possible military use could 200 men in a lead force in HMS Fearless be when the main component of the Commando is back at its home base? While I see that it is more desirable to keep troops on a long lead than a short lead, surely that is not evidence of any great desire to step up the campaign, which is what needs to be done.

Adam Ingram: I do not want to start trading operational decision-making processes. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge from both his military background and his time in the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that he will recognise that the tempo of demand can rise and fall. It is probably different from anything that we have ever faced before—what has happened in other theatres does not necessarily apply in this theatre. It is why the Chief of the Defence Staff has talked about the varying nature of the type of action that we could take and why I mention the probability of the tempo rising and falling as needs demand.
	There are no plans to put large-scale troops on the ground at the present time. That is a military judgment. Obviously, that is in line with any political objectives we may also have, but these matters have to be carefully balanced.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about HMS Ocean. That ship is coming back for refit, which is why it has not been retained in theatre. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the matter, we can get all the details to him. We do not need to get into a squabble about a particular ship. We have put a very large component of ships in the area, and we believe that that will meet our needs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the 200 men and the total complement. I have explained that those returning home would be available for immediate deployment if the tempo increased sufficiently to require their presence there. Indeed, that will apply to any other resources we need to put into theatre if needs change.

Tam Dalyell: In his opening statement, my right hon. Friend stressed our friendship with the Government of Oman. Would he care to speculate on why it appears that the Government of Oman are not prepared to allow their territory to be used as a base for operations in Afghanistan?
	My right hon. Friend says that we should be conscious of certain things. I ask whether Ministers are conscious of the fact that, on Saturday 17 November, Ramadan begins. Do we have the clear, categorical assurance that there will be no military action during Ramadan? It would be absolute folly in terms of the Islamic and Arab world if we were to conduct military operations during Ramadan.
	My right hon. Friend comes back on bin Laden. May it not be, as the BBC World Service seminar, which a number of us attended, suggested, that bin Laden is an elusive venture capitalist of fundamentalist beliefs? If that is the case, what about the intelligence work that should be done in Germany, Britain and America? There are a lot of people who think that the atrocity in Washington and New York was honed and finalised not in Afghanistan, but rather nearer home.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend raised a number of questions. I shall not speculate on our relationship with Oman, because I have already set out our very close relationship with it, and I do not recognise the way in which he presented the matter.
	On Ramadan, my direct answer is no, I will not state what my hon. Friend is asking. The military campaign will continue. On the nature of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation, I am surprised that my hon. Friend asked that question because we have made it clear that every effort is being made to close the economic and financial aspects of that particular organisation.
	To undermine an organisation's ability to raise money and use it for nefarious ends is an effective way to deal with terrorism. Every effort is being made in this country and internationally to use the best intelligence available, not just in terms of military intelligence, but also that connected with the financial institutions, to close down that aspect of the terrorist network.

John Wilkinson: May I say to the Minster that I am sure that all right-thinking people will wish success to our armed forces in this most challenging and crucial enterprise on behalf of our freedom and our ultimate democracy? It is much better to employ more troops quickly now than to have a build up later because the mission has not been accomplished as swiftly or as successfully as desired. I hope that he is also bearing in mind the crucial importance of Pakistan's interests. This operation should therefore be concluded by the winter and a relief and reconstruction programme undertaken in Afghanistan to accompany our military operations.

Adam Ingram: I cannot agree or accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the nature of the deployment of troops and their use. We say consistently that we have taken the best advice on this and we can get no better advice than that from the chiefs of the defence staff. I would rather accept their judgment than the expression set out by the hon. Gentleman. He is right, however, about our overall objectives in Afghanistan: it is not about the destruction of that country, but about its reconstruction. That remains one of our objectives, not just from a UK or coalition perspective, but from the perspective of the international community. That is why the UN is putting in so much effort to achieve that.

Harry Barnes: We are all concerned about the well-being of our forces. Does the greater deployment of our troops mean that bombing may not be as necessary as it was previously and that it might now be limited to the protection of those troops?

Adam Ingram: I will not set out in detail our future intentions in that respect. I said in my statement that the bombing campaign would continue, that it would be proportionate, targeted and for the specific purposes laid down to achieve the military objectives that we have been discussing this morning. My hon. Friend should take on board that we should not be setting out in detail the nature of this operation. The bombing has achieved major objectives, but if there are still targets required to be taken out by such a bombing campaign that will also be our objective.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Defence returned yesterday from a two-day visit to Operation Saif Sareea. I hope that he has already heard that we were hugely impressed, as he was, by the success of that operation, particularly the close working relationship between Oman and United Kingdom forces, which has undoubtedly done much to strengthen the ties between our two countries.
	While it is unfortunate that certain deficiencies in our forces have already been exposed by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)—and I do not believe that to be helpful to our forces—if we are to be engaged in operations in Afghanistan, it is important that any deficiency in spares must be remedied at the earliest opportunity. In the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid–Sussex (Mr. Soames), can he tell the House whether the Government have plans to bring other units to a state of high readiness and not just a small contingent of commandos?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the valuable lessons that we have learned from Saif Sareea 2. He rightly drew attention to the close relationship between this country and Oman. It is a long and deep relationship and we benefit greatly from it. As for any deficiencies in spares, I do not know specifically what he is referring to, but clearly if we go into operational mode we have to make sure that our troops have the best equipment we can give them and that there are no deficiencies anywhere. I hope that that will assist the hon. Gentleman in understanding that we are learning lessons and making progress. I do not want to speculate on the deployment of other troops, but we have a wide range of troops available in a state of high readiness. That is the purpose of the training and deployment cycle that we apply, so if there is a requirement, we can meet it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Minister take us a bit further in describing the exact military and political objectives of this operation? Are they to occupy Afghanistan and impose a new Government or are they merely concentrated on an attempt to find bin Laden and his group and then withdraw? What immediate assistance will be given by this increased troop deployment to ensure that food and aid gets through to people who are desperately hungry and starving and that those refugees who are currently trapped behind barbed wire entanglements, unable to escape into Pakistan, will be given some relief? Does he not think that such matters are equally important?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend does not have a monopoly on compassion or concern about humanitarian aid. If he has not understood our military objectives after all the weeks of discussion, I really am surprised. Let me set them out again. They are to bring Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda leaders to justice. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with that. They are to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat. I hope that he agrees with that. They are to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. I hope that he agrees with that. I also hope that he will give full credit to all the efforts that have been made by this and other Governments in trying to deal with the difficult and deep humanitarian problems in Afghanistan. He should point the finger at those who are causing the problem. International Governments are seeking to pour in millions of pounds in aid—tonnes of food and supplies—and the Taliban are frustrating our objectives in that as well. I would like to hear my hon. Friend criticising those who are stopping aid getting through rather than the Governments who are delivering it.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. Can he confirm that a sizeable proportion of the deployment is made up of Scottish service personnel? Does he agree that service men, service women and their families receive a high level of support across Scotland, including that from the Scottish National party? What plans, if any, are there for the deployed troops to assist in the humanitarian effort to help the millions of displaced and starving Afghans, as there was no mention of the humanitarian dimension in his statement?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that we should set out the nationalities or the particular towns and villages from which each of the troops come. To be honest, that was rather a silly point. They are representing the United Kingdom as part of a coalition and if the hon. Gentleman is supporting its objective, I welcome the support of the SNP, mindful of its policy position on NATO and elsewhere.
	I have mentioned the humanitarian effort and its objectives in my responses. I had anticipated that the subject would be raised. Every effort is being made to move forward on the humanitarian front. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a major statement in the House the other day. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present. If he was, he will be aware of the totality of the operation. I hope that he takes on board my point about who is frustrating that effort and joins me, the Government and others who are trying to make progress on that front.

Derek Conway: Does the Minister accept that he need not fret overmuch about the niggling from a tiny minority of Labour Back Benchers when, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) pointed out, the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry have the absolute, wholehearted support of the majority of the House and undoubtedly of the nation? He referred earlier to the Government's concerns about some of the speculation in the media. I think that what will concern many hon. Members is the effect upon the families of those who are deployed when particularly television producers get a quick thrill from shots that do not help the objectives of the alliance and most certainly worry those at home. Service families understand the risks that their family members face, but it does not follow that they are any less concerned about them.
	Will the Government therefore take the opportunity not to bully the news media, but to point out to them frankly but firmly that their actions are watched by those who consider themselves to be the enemies of this nation, jeopardise the armed forces who are deployed on our behalf and most certainly worry and indeed frighten their loved ones who are left back at home?

Adam Ingram: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not worry about niggles from any source, whether they are from the Government Back Benches or elsewhere. The Government genuinely welcome debate. I think that it is right in a democracy that people should express all the dimensions that we need to examine, and that that should be done in an open, honest and upfront manner. There is, however, a purpose to debate which is usually to reach a conclusion. When the issues have been examined, they have then to be weighed in the balance. As I said, I ask those who continue to raise some of those issues to question their own judgment, as they have asked us to do. The Government question our own judgment, and they should question theirs.
	I do not think that we are guilty of bullying the press; if we were, I think that there would be screaming from the high heavens about it. Nevertheless, I take on board and echo the sentiments that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) has expressed about the weight that may be imparted to some comments and about the uncertainty and destabilisation that those comments can cause in the minds not only of those who are on the front lines but of their families. We owe it to everyone at this time to try to be as accurate as possible in imparting information. That is what we are seeking to do in this statement, and what we shall seek to do in further debates and examination as we move forward in this campaign.

Andrew Dismore: May I may draw my right hon. Friend's attention to yesterday's edition of the Arab language newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat which reports that five British fundamentalists were killed at an al-Qaeda base? They were recruited by al-Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom, and, four weeks ago, one of them, Muhammed Omar, travelled to join bin Laden. Is it not about time that we clamped down on the activities of al-Muhajiroun, which is recruiting British Muslims in that way, and of Omar Bakri Muhammad, both to save the lives of those British Muslims and to prevent them from being a threat to British troops who may still be fighting there?

Adam Ingram: I compliment my hon. Friend on his very close interest in that very detailed sphere of interest. I know that he studies that aspect of the subject, and he makes very valuable contributions to our understanding of it. It would be wrong for me to comment on press speculation regardless of whether it appears in the foreign press or the domestic press. If there is intelligence to be gathered on what is happening on the ground, it is usually imparted in an open and upfront manner and not as speculation.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is aware of the Government's efforts specifically to tackle the threat posed by individuals who are part of the al-Qaeda network or any other international terrorist network that is linked to it. Of course that threat resides not only within the United Kingdom but is an international problem. That is why we sometimes need an international response to that threat.

Jenny Tonge: So far the Minister has given very sketchy answers indeed to questions on humanitarian aid, which was not mentioned at all in his statement. He will remember that 5 million people are at risk of starvation over the winter in Afghanistan. Does he have any plans at all for the military to assist in the delivery of aid, either by changing the nature of the bombing or forming safe corridors for the aid workers?

Adam Ingram: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), no monopoly of compassion on the issue rests on either the Opposition or Government Benches. I think that we all understand the need to drive forward on the issue. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to do what I have asked others to do: weigh the issues in the balance and then consider whether there is a purpose to the military objective. She has to make that judgment herself. I hope that she will realise that there is such a purpose. If we achieve our objectives, we shall remove not only that organisation and network from Afghanistan but the threat that it poses internationally.
	My statement did not address the humanitarian issue because it was not designed for that purpose. We had a major statement only the other day from the Secretary of State for International Development on the issue. If the hon. Lady is trying to imply that the Government are not concerned about that issue, I do not think that she is living in the same world as I am. I anticipated that I would have to respond on the issue, and I have tried in all my replies to do so very specifically, not in a sketchy manner, and to express the depth of the problem that we are dealing with.
	We cannot deliver humanitarian aid at the point of a bayonet; that is not the way in which it will be delivered. It has to be delivered using a range of humanitarian efforts, not only from the United Kingdom but from the international community. We are trying to create a stable and benign environment in Afghanistan. That is one of the objectives of the military campaign, and achieving it will enable humanitarian aid to flow through the country freely and without hindrance from the Taliban regime.

Julian Lewis: I strongly endorse the plea that the Minister has been giving to the mass media to show restrain in what they publish at this delicate time, particularly in relation to speculation on what might happen in the employment of special forces. Surely the media should bear in mind that even a newspaper published in London is now accessible worldwide on the internet, and that bin Laden has not been slow to use western technology against the west.
	Does the Minister agree, however, that the media have performed a very important role in alerting society as a whole to the nature of the threat that we face by making it clear to world opinion that the horrors we face cannot go unanswered, and by warning us even today that if the Government and our American allies are not successful in our campaign we may even face the threat of nuclear terrorism from bin Laden and his terrible organisation?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I think that he is right to say that the media should show restraint and that, equally, they have an important role to play in bringing into the open the enormity of what we face. We are not only dealing with 11 September, as the network's probable intent is to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if the network did get its hands on such material its intent would become very clear. I think that the media are able to get that point across, bolstering all the action that we are taking to tackle the menace and evil that currently exist within Afghanistan.
	We hold almost daily briefings either in the United Kingdom or in the United States to set out the various developments. This statement is an addition to that process. There is no paucity of information although, for very good reasons, there are some matters—on detailed operational activities, or to confirm or deny the presence and actions of special forces—on which we will not comment.

Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend has referred on a number of occasions to the very special regard in which we hold our armed services. They are of course even more special to their families. I hope that he will agree that, although I note his remarks about being open and transparent in our debate, we should be measured and careful to base our comments on as much factual information as possible. His door and telephone line have always been open to me on a range of defence issues. Will he confirm that he will always be available to hon. Members on those issues? Will he also say something about the importance that he attaches to hon. Members—particularly those who, like me, come from constituencies containing armed services personnel and families who are in the active arena—keeping him in touch with the concerns of those personnel and families?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words. She is right about the special regard in which our armed forces are held, probably even more so as a result of what they are being asked to do. We must be measured and careful in what we say in our debates. My hon. Friend is right about that, too. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that when they raise issues with the Ministry of Defence, whether through me as the Armed Forces Minister, or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as regards his responsibilities, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we try to be as open and as helpful as we can be. We do not operate a closed-door policy. We recognise that many hon. Members have a key interest in these matters, and even those who do not have armed forces personnel in their area may still have an interest. We want to make sure that hon. Members are kept fully advised and appraised, not just about current issues, but about the wide range of important tasks that we ask our armed forces to perform.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the crews of the Canberras flying out of RAF Marham, who, day in, day out, fly over the target areas in Afghanistan? Often they are the unsung heroes of the campaign. As the deployment will clearly put financial strain on the Ministry of Defence budget, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that when the conflict is over, all our armed forces receive the funding that they deserve?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is trying to widen the debate a little. There will in due course be debates on the wider issues of the armed forces and no doubt he will express his views then, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard his comments. With regard to the Canberra crews, my father served in the RAF and he does not think that they are unsung heroes—he constantly sings the praises of the RAF. They do a tremendous job, which sometimes puts them at risk—not just those in the Canberras, but elsewhere. That applies to all our people, in whichever part of the operational activity they are involved. I fully recognise the very valuable work done by the Canberra crews and the important information that they bring back from those flights.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread support for his objectives in the campaign and for the deployment of troops on the ground, and that we all send our hopes and prayers with those troops? But does he agree with the adage that a stitch in time can save nine? Will he get on with the job, get the troops in place and finish the job on this occasion? Will he confirm that one of the key rules of engagement in the campaign will remain minimising the risk to civilians?

Adam Ingram: We are getting on with the job. That is what the announcement is about this morning. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of all the other efforts designed to achieve our wide-ranging objectives. I accept his remarks about the wide support for those. He need not worry too much—we are getting on with the job. Generals in this place do not match up to the generals, admirals and others who give me advice.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that some of our NATO and Commonwealth allies might deploy forces alongside ours and those of the Americans?

Adam Ingram: That is an important point. The coalition is increasingly international—not just US-led, with substantial UK support. Right across the international community, countries are offering a wide range of support to achieve our objectives. The threat and the problem are international, so the solution must be international as well.

David Cameron: I welcome the Minister's statement. Will he join me in paying tribute to the crews of the C17s, Tristars and VC10s based at Brize Norton in my constituency, who play such a vital role in air-to-air refuelling and transport? They provide the lifeblood of operations such as those on which we are about to embark. Can the Minister bring the House up to date about the prospect of serious contributions in the form of troops and material from other NATO and European countries?

Adam Ingram: On the last point, about 90 countries are currently considering the resources and assets that they could bring into play to assist the coalition of forces. That is considerable. It would be wrong to go into detail. It is for those countries to set out what they are offering. Some has been offered on a close net—privately—to the US, which must consider whether the offers would be beneficial. I could list a wide range of countries, but it would be wrong to do so, because the minute one lists some countries, one forgets others. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that about 90 countries are part of the coalition. I pay tribute to the crews of the aircraft to which he referred. My earlier comments stand. If I had not paid tribute to the RAF, my father would have been very unhappy.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister mentioned that the deployment would be carried out on the basis of best intelligence. There have been various newspaper reports over recent days analysing the US Rangers' raids. It has been alleged that not only was resistance by the enemy fiercer than expected, but that, perhaps more worryingly, the intelligence that went into those operations was not up to scratch. Although I do not expect the Minister directly to discuss the intelligence reports, will he comment on whether what he describes as "best intelligence" is adequate intelligence for the purpose, now that our troops are potentially going into action?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall not discuss press allegations. When I use the phrase "best intelligence", I mean just that. It is more than adequate. We have put a great deal of effort into it, but there is no such thing as perfect intelligence. The more countries come into the international coalition, the more they bring their resources into play, and the totality of the intelligence grows as a consequence. It is not just in terms of troops and equipment that countries can assist us. Many countries have very good knowledge of certain aspects of that part of the world, and they can assist us in that way as well.

Michael Weir: In his statement, the Minister mentioned press speculation. Much of that centred on 45 Commando based in my constituency, owing to the acknowledged expertise of its members in winter warfare and experience in humanitarian relief efforts. That has caused a great deal of anxiety and concern among service families in my constituency. Although I appreciate that operational decisions must be made quickly, may I have the Minister's assurance that if there is any change in the troops to be deployed in the operation, particularly if any members of 45 Commando are to be deployed, he will keep the families informed and tell them as soon as possible that that will happen? Will he inform the House or advise all hon. Members who have bases in their constituencies of any such changes, so that we may be fully and quickly appraised of changes in troop deployments affecting our constituencies?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that touches on some of the concerns that have been raised about press speculation, to which I referred as well.
	We put a tremendous amount of effort into communicating with families. In advance of the statement, a signal was sent to all the forces which will remain deployed. Families were advised in advance or at the same time as the House. We are very conscious of the importance of that. If there were to be any change, the same rules would apply. It is important to communicate with local Members so that they are fully aware as well and not caught offside by any press comment. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
	I will meet the commitment to ensure that families are as best served as possible and provided with as much knowledge, as much in advance as possible, as we can give them.

Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Sydney Chapman: I was saying an hour ago, before a most important statement, that my hon. Friend's Bill—I welcome him to his Front Bench post, and hope that it is a good omen for his measure—deals with the marine waters of England and Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland have devolved powers. I hope that those countries will follow us by introducing similar legislation, which is vital to the interests of conservation.
	I appreciate that through the Bill my hon. Friend is not trying to interfere with existing European marine sites. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) mentioned one that is near her constituency. My hon. Friend has targeted his Bill correctly.
	Many of the Bill's provisions are mirrored in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. I shall make two rather detailed points. I agree that such matters are perhaps best kept for consideration in Committee, but I would like to give them an airing now.
	Clause 1(3) replicates clause 28(3) of the 1981 Act. It provides for one month for public consultation and comment before the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly decides whether to designate a marine area. A special case could be made for providing a slightly longer period—perhaps two or three months—for reasons that I might explore in Committee. On the other hand, the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Assembly have six months to confirm, or otherwise, the designation after hearing comments and public consultations. I believe that that period could be shortened. I see no reason why it should not be limited to three months.
	I have a detailed point to raise on clause 7, which relates to areas where the marine sites can be designated. For good reasons, they are restricted to areas seaward of the "mean low water mark" of ordinary tides. I understand the reason for that: it is to avoid any overlap with existing sites of special scientific interest. As there are so few sites bordering esturial waters or the seaside, I suggest that when new areas are designated and they are not adjacent to SSSIs, there should be provision for the designation to go inland to at least the high water mark. Shores can be crucial to maintaining conservation.
	I shall support the Bill. I am conscious that it has all-party support. I know that these issues are strengthened by having across-the-Floor support. I pay tribute, for example—this will not be a comprehensive list—to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for the tremendous contribution they have made to conservation measures, not least the 1981 Act. The Minister is rightly highly regarded for his interest in conservation matters. It would be a terrible pity and a keen disappointment if this most worthy Bill, which has the noblest of objectives, did not at least proceed to Committee.
	Finally, I ask the Minister immediately to consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the Government come up with a joined-up approach to this vital measure and ensure that it takes its place on the statute book.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my north London neighbour, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), and to support the principles outlined in the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), another north London neighbour, on his excellent introduction of his private Member's Bill. As someone who has been relatively lucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I believe that he set a high standard for the rest of us to follow. I shall probe his case and raise one or two concerns, but I hope to do so in a way that does not provoke his ire or that of other hon. Members.
	I come to the Bill with no great constituency pressure, although the excellent Hertfordshire wildlife trust is keen that I support the Bill, as are one or two other constituents.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman has a Middlesex constituency, so I should just like to point out that it is the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful for that chastisement and vaguely helpful intervention.
	My interest in these matters derives partly from the pleasure that I get from kayaking. I believe that Denis Healey said that every politician should have a hinterland; canoeing forms a small part of mine. In that respect, the timing of the Bill is not fantastic, as one could not hope to go sea kayaking at the moment. One would have to go to inland waters such as the Tryweryn or the Dart to get some practice for the summer, when sea kayaking is much more feasible around our coast. In the last seven or eight years, I have very much appreciated the marine life around the coast of Pembrokeshire, the Llyn peninsula near Anglesey and, indeed, the Hebrides. The pleasure of seeing whales, porpoises, seals and sea birds and recognising that their survival depends on our efforts to provide further protection for the marine environment makes me want to support the hon. Member for Uxbridge today.
	As my intervention on the hon. Gentleman demonstrated, I have a particular interest in renewable energy. I am lucky enough to chair the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group, and the potential for offshore wind farms around our coastline to contribute to our energy needs is huge. As I suggested, the wind industry supports the progress of the Bill, but it wants further discussion of its concerns. It is worried that a network of designated marine reserves would further hinder the development of offshore wind sites at a time when the Government are trying to streamline the consents process for such sites.

John Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman outline why the wind industry thinks that those reserves will be a hindrance?

Gareth Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall do so in a moment.
	I have a further point of contact with the Bill through my roots at Aberystwyth university. Nobody who was a student there could fail to be aware of the excellent Friends of Cardigan Bay, and its campaigning work over the years to protect bottlenose dolphins in the bay. To be fair, the Government have not been at all idle in the last four years in trying to protect the marine environment. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 touched on the marine environment and additional protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty has rightly been incorporated in legislation. Where AONBs are on the coastline, additional protection is provided for the marine environment. That is also true of SSSIs that border our coastline.
	Another key dimension of the 2000 Act in relation to the marine environment is the section that makes it an offence recklessly to disturb marine animals. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas)—my namesake—and for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for their campaigns to get that provision into legislation. Much as I enjoy a jet-ski, I recognise the damage that it can cause and the need for protection. The Government were therefore right to take action.
	I commend the Minister for the Environment for an initiative of his that led to a positive Government measure—the United Kingdom's adoption of an internationally agreed strategy under annexe 5 of the Ospar convention to reduce, and indeed eliminate, discharges of hazardous and radioactive substances into the Atlantic. As I understand it, the measure was opposed for some considerable time by the previous Government. The fact that the Government have taken action under the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, to examine further the reasons why porpoises are being caught and their numbers reduced, is also positive. I welcome the development of a UK bycatch response strategy, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed).
	The process of strengthening environmental regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry was also important. That regulation was tightened in May. However, probably the single most important initiative for the future protection of our marine environment was the establishment of a review of marine nature conservation some two years ago. Its purpose was properly to evaluate the success or failure of marine nature conservation measures. Other hon. Members have mentioned the crucial conclusion of the interim review, which says that the one key option available to us to protect the purely national parts of our marine environment—the marine nature reserves specified in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—has been a failure, as only three sites in the UK have so far been designated.
	Given the length of time that my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent some 20 years ago trying to get the marine nature reserve initiative on to the statute book, I hesitate to ram home the message about its failure. Sadly, however, the review was brutal about the failure of MNRs. It pointed out how bureaucratic the MNR process had become and spoke of its unrealistic reliance on the need for complete consensus before designation could occur. It said that the legislation had been too prescriptive. The failure to designate the Menai straits as a marine nature reserve, despite the considerable effort that has been made in the past few years, is proof of that fact.
	There was some doubt in the minds of those who undertook the review about whether the initiative was purely a legislative failure. Some thought that the policy position requiring total agreement to be reached among all the relevant interests before an MNR could be established was clearly a crucial contributory factor in its failure. Some marine waters in British waterways that are of European importance are already protected through their designation as special areas of conservation or special protection areas under the EC habitats and birds directives, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) has already alluded. As I understand it, there are already some 133 marine SPAs and 151 special sites of marine conservation in our territorial waters. They are part of the Natura 2000 network of sites that is being created. The crucial point about them is that they are designated because of their European and international significance. If sites are significant only to our marine environment, they cannot be covered under European directives.
	I welcome this week's confirmation that the habitats directive is to be extended to all waters over which we exercise sovereignty, with a 200-mile limit. I also welcome the fact that we are going to be the first European state to incorporate the initiative in legislation.
	We have already identified the first possible special area of conservation beyond the 12-mile limit: the Darwin mounds, a site that is situated near the north-west coast of Scotland. That is excellent news. I am told that the Darwin mounds site has a level of biodiversity equivalent to that of a tropical rainforest. Apparently, its importance relates to the substantial population of deep-water coral, Lophelia pertusa, which, for those not expert in Latin, is a cold-water coral. Another factor that gives the site such international importance is that the coral appears to be growing on sand, whereas before the discovery of the site such a phenomenon was widely thought to be impossible.
	Clearly, the protection of such internationally important sites beyond the 12-mile limit is further excellent news for the protection of our marine environment. The problem with the habitats directive is that it covers only sites with elements of European significance. For example, two marine areas with special protection can be found on the coast of Wales in Cardigan bay—the Llyn peninsula and Cardigan bay itself. The Llyn peninsula was designated because of the importance of its estuaries and reefs, whereas Cardigan bay was designated because of its 100-plus colony of bottle-nosed dolphins. Other elements of national importance do not have the protection of the habitats directive, so the sub-tidal sea caves at Maen Meltt, which support a variety of sponges and cobblestone habitats, are not protected by the Llyn special area of conservation designation. The area would therefore benefit from the measures that the Bill seeks to introduce.
	Just up the coast, there are nationally important marine sites, outside the internationally important sites, that receive no legal protection whatever. The inland sea between Holy island and Anglesey has sub-tidal basins that are extremely important for a range of marine invertebrates. The Skerries is a wonderful area in which to see seabirds, and crucial tidal rapids support a wide range of sea life, again with no legal protection.
	Thus marine sites of special scientific interest need to be established to secure further protection and to manage nationally important wildlife sites—even if they are not of European significance. The urgency of the case for action has been chronicled by a number of organisations—the excellent World Wide Fund for Nature published a report in September last year entitled the "Marine Health Check", based on 16 case studies of key species or habitat indicators representing different levels of the marine food chain. The report says:
	"Among the habitats seen to be in severe decline are eelgrass meadows, home to the seahorse, which have disappeared from 85 per cent. of the UK's estuaries, and saltmarsh".
	That is just one example of the need for action.
	An example highlighted by the excellent RSPB, touched on by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), is Lyme bay, which has some of the most diverse marine habitats in Devon and Dorset and is known for its rocky reefs. Concern about the reefs has grown ever since local fishermen and divers started to report damage and decreasing catches. Some three years ago, a dive survey confirmed the need for action by nature conservation agencies to protect the most biologically sensitive reefs.
	Work is under way in partnership with local fishermen to find an agreed method of promoting and protecting the reefs and the fish in that area, but designation as a marine site of special scientific interest would give added clout to the work. Stronger enforcement action will also be necessary to protect any sites that are designated as marine SSIs. The duty under clause 3 would further the conservation of sites, which is important in that regard. However, there is an issue about the funding for bodies engaged in marine conservation enforcement. Some of the non-governmental organisations that have commented on the Bill are worried about the need for additional funding.
	I want to deal with a specific anxiety about the Bill's impact on offshore wind farms, partly in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. The British Wind Energy Association is keen for the Bill to make progress and for it to be considered in Committee, but it is worried about the law of unintended consequences. Offshore wind farms tend to require shallower waters, which are often potentially important wildlife sites. It points out that the criterion for designating sites of special scientific interest—the terrestrial equivalent of marine sites of special scientific interest—is that the selected area should contain more than 1 per cent. of the British population of a specific species.

John Randall: I am aware of that anxiety. It should not be assumed that the current threshold of 1 per cent. will necessarily be appropriate for the marine environment. It is important to understand that the Bill would not grant any new powers to stop developments in the marine environment.

Gareth Thomas: I agree especially with the second element of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, the use of that 1 per cent. threshold until now may help the hon. Gentleman to understand the anxiety throughout the wind energy community, which is nevertheless keen to discuss the matter further with him.
	The two most common species on the 18 offshore wind farm sites that the Government have designated so far are the common scoter and the red-throated diver. Their numbers tend to go beyond the threshold. On 10 sites, the threshold is easily reached.

John Randall: Common scoter have almost disappeared as a British breeding bird. Although it may be inconvenient, it is important to conserve that species.

Gareth Thomas: I appreciate that and I support the hon. Gentleman's aim of protecting sea birds, such as the common scoter, which face the threat of extinction. However, we do not want to prevent sensible wind farm development.
	The wind energy industry is also worried about the lack of data on much of our marine environment. The possible adoption of the precautionary approach may mean that the sites where wind energy developers have collected data on the marine environment may take on greater importance because of a lack of information on others.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge will also understand that experience of the hunt for onshore wind farm sites shows that the designation of SSSIs and the justified anxiety to protect wildlife in those areas have been used as an excuse—sometimes a genuine excuse—by energy conservatives, who are desperate to stop wind farms.

John Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that SSSIs are valid, or does he believe that such designation should not occur?

Gareth Thomas: Of course they are valid. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the additional measures that the Government introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to toughen up their protection. I merely make the point to amplify and explain the concern of the wind farm community about the possible designation of marine sites.
	I have had experience of the hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers in the context of hospitals, in which we have a mutual interest. I have confidence that he and those working with him will be able to persuade the wind farm community of the need for the Bill to make further progress, and I hope that he will meet them.
	Ironically, wind farms may help to bring wildlife benefits by creating no-go areas in the marine environment, which may become havens for wildlife. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that no existing organisation would be given new powers under the Bill to prevent marine developments such as wind farms. Nevertheless, I hope that after this discussion he will have a further understanding of the concerns of the wind industry.
	I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve with the Bill. I hope that given the particular anxiety to which I have referred he will meet the wind energy community to try to resolve the issue. I wish the Bill well in its progress through the House.

Keith Simpson: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his presentation of the Bill. Hon. Members have recognised that my hon. Friend has put a vast amount of work into this legislation, with the support of hon. Members from both sides. He rightly emphasised the support given by non-governmental organisations, especially the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
	My hon. Friend is a distinguished ornithologist, and he has a specialist interest and knowledge in this area. I congratulate him on the way in which he presented the Bill and on his contributions in the give and take of the debate. The Conservative Front-Bench team welcome the Bill, and we wish it every success and a swift passage.
	In the debate so far—I hope that other hon. Members will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we have had good, short contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for South–West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in his interventions. We have had experienced contributions from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), whom I have had the privilege of hearing on a number of occasions on such subjects, and from the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). We heard a long, well-read speech from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who I assume was in favour of the Bill, although I was not quite sure. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) supported the Bill, but rightly raised concerns that we hope to address.
	The basic question is whether my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has identified a serious gap in nature conservation. I think that we all agree that he has—that is the most important principle that we have established. He has much evidence to support that from the specialist Committees of the House of Commons. I shall not go into great detail, but I shall briefly refer to the 20th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on UK biodiversity, of 22 November 2000. Its conclusions said:
	"The Government must address the range of problems and inadequacies in their approach to marine biodiversity. As an island nation, the conservation of marine biodiversity should be paramount and the Government should consider whether a new statutory agency is required to deal with marine biodiversity issues."
	There is a great deal of other evidence on this subject.
	What have the Government done? To be fair, they have moved a considerable way, and I praise them for that. In particular, like other hon. Members, I want to put on the record my appreciation of the work done by the Minister for the Environment, who has a long and distinguished track record in this area. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, he speaks with a great deal of knowledge.
	The Government have identified that a gap exists in nature conversation involving marine wildlife. In 1998, they set up a working party to consider the options to improve protection for marine sites and species, and the interim report of its review of marine nature conservation was published by DEFRA in March 2001. Its most important conclusion was contained in paragraph 153, which states:
	"The one option that the report cannot recommend is the retention of the status quo. At the very least, the continuing evolution of marine conservation regulation threatens to make an already complex situation even more confusing: some rationalisation—even if only at the level of the adoption of more common objectives—is essential. On this matter, there is consensus between conservationists, regulators and regulated."
	Many hon. Members know that it is rare to get those three groups together, singing off the same song sheet.
	As I have said, the Government have recognised that something needs to be done, and the Minister is on record as saying just that. In fact, in the 13 July edition of Tribune, he made this comment on the Government's approach to United Kingdom biodiversity:
	"Labour did a lot in its first term to improve the protection of the terrestrial environment. I believe that we need to do much more to protect our oceans and sea—which contain over half of our biodiversity. We are committed to producing a cross-Government, Marine Stewardship Report."
	That is excellent news, but many hon. Members and those outside Parliament would argue that we now need to go beyond producing reports. In all such complex situations, the danger is always that we study them to death. Genuine reservations have been raised, but we now need some form of implementation.
	I have great faith in the Minister because he has already effectively accepted that something needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, by introducing the Bill—which he has said does not contain a vast number of rules and regulations—is taking a first but important step on something about which consensus exists in the House. We should bear in mind the comment by the WWF in its update for June 2001:
	"There is no national vision or policy for the marine environment. There is no single Government statement on the marine environment which draws together the areas of responsibility in DEFRA, DTI, MOD and others, nor is there any coordination of devolved and non-devolved matters."
	By this private Member's Bill, we may be able to bring together all those interested parties. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish implied that several Whitehall Departments had reservations, so ironically, we may well be able to use the Bill as a tool to make a considerable advance in marine wildlife conservation.
	I warmly welcome the Bill. It is an excellent example of a private Member's Bill that has all-party support, and it has been proposed by an hon. Member who is much respected on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister, whom I know feels very sympathetic towards the Bill's aims, will give it Government support. He will undoubtedly flag up reservations, but I hope that we can proceed actively into Committee.

Helen Clark: I, too, welcome the Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, Mr. Randall, and I deeply congratulate him on doing so.
	The need for better protection for marine wildlife is very real, and the arguments in favour of such protection have been rehearsed in the House before. DEFRA is carrying out a review into ways to improve the conservation of the marine environment, and the Bill would help to achieve the objectives of that review, in which the need for more action to protect our nationally important marine wildlife sites has already been recognised.
	In February last year, as the House will know, I introduced a Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, with the support of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and others, to tackle the problems of harassment and disturbance of marine wildlife by motorised marine leisure vessels and jet skis. The Bill sought to enable local authorities to stop the use of such vessels in coastal areas, to protect marine wildlife and promote safety, and to make it an offence to disturb marine wildlife. The Bill would also have given local authorities power to designate, on either a temporary or permanent basis, any coastal marine area within their power a motorised marine leisure vessels-free zone.
	Since my Bill was considered, we have had the Government's own piece of environmental legislation, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I was delighted to be chosen to be a member of the Committee. The Act represented a significant advance for nature conservation. As a result of it, intentional or reckless disturbance of whales, dolphins and porpoises is now an offence. My Bill would have addressed that, too.
	The Act represented a giant leap forward for terrestrial nature conservation, but its passing into law has meant that, despite one or two improvements such as the example I have just given, protection of the marine environment has fallen yet further behind. The Bill that we are discussing today will, I believe, begin to redress that terrible imbalance.
	There is much to be welcomed in the Bill. In particular, it will mean proper and correct enforcement of protection measures through the establishment of management schemes for marine sites of special interest. One of my personal concerns, when I introduced my own Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, was the level of hidden disturbance and, indeed, persecution of marine wildlife. This Bill will tackle those problems head-on, as they should be tackled.
	I am also pleased that the Bill will ensure that those with the power to protect our best marine wildlife sites will have to exercise that power. It gives the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales authority to direct the development and implementation of management schemes for marine sites of special interest in cases in which it is felt that not enough is being done to look after those sites. It is right that relevant marine authorities will have to observe their responsibilities to protect our precious marine wildlife. I hope that those measures in Mr. Randall's Bill will be used to tackle the problems posed by motorised marine leisure vessels that I highlighted in my Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, and which were also highlighted very well by The Sunday Times.
	Early research commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has revealed a significant number of sites around the coasts of Wales and England that would benefit if this Bill became law. I am told that off the Sussex coast is an area called the Royal Sovereign shoals, where a variety of habitats are present. They include a sandstone reef and outcrops of chalk. Local wildlife include a variety of sponges, anemones and starfish, as well as more bizarre-sounding creatures such as the elephant's ear sponge—a new one on me.

Stephen Pound: You'll find one in the Strangers Bar most nights.

Helen Clark: Perhaps my hon. Friend would know more about that than I would.
	There is also the chimney sponge. However, another important area that will be more familiar to hon. Members is the large expanse of Poole bay, off Dorset. The bay is sheltered from the prevailing southwesterly winds, and is an area of gentle underwater slopes punctuated in places by hard ironstone reefs. Not surprisingly, this sizeable area is home to a rich community of wildlife.
	Of particular interest to me are the frequent sightings off Durlston head of bottle-nosed dolphins, common dolphins and pilot whales. There are also significant wintering populations of several bird species, including red-breasted mergansers—a new one to me—and great crested grebes. The Bill offers an exciting opportunity to improve protection for the Royal Sovereign shoals and Poole bay, and for many other sites.
	I do not believe—nor does anyone else—that the Bill will solve all the problems facing our marine environment and wildlife, although I hope that I have helped to show that it can and will be a significant step forward. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge for introducing it. I hope that the Government will give a commitment that comprehensive marine legislation covering all United Kingdom waters will be forthcoming later in this Parliament. In the meantime, there is no doubt that the Bill takes us in the right direction, and I hope that others will join me in supporting it today and working for it.

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased to learn that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) supports the Bill. I hope that in the few minutes remaining before the end of today's sitting, she will speak to some of her colleagues who have reservations.

Helen Clark: Indeed I shall.

Henry Bellingham: It is only a small point, but perhaps it is time the hon. Lady learned to refer to hon. Members by constituency, not by name.
	I welcome the work on the Bill done by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the efforts that he has made in promoting it today.

Helen Clark: I referred to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Uxbridge, Mr. Randall. I suggest that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) listens more carefully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should get on with debating the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Lady and I can discuss that point afterwards in the Bar.
	I have an interest in the Bill because my constituency extends over a large section of coastline along the Wash. As several hon. Members have mentioned, this country contains many sites of special scientific interest and other designated sites. My constituency contains a significant number of SSSIs that cover the coastline itself. They run to the low water mark—the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and the Bill's promoter pointed out that fact. There is therefore a gap in our habitat conservation policy. I shall not repeat what has been said today about the numerous reports that have been produced. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) summed that up very well.
	My constituency contains a thriving commercial fishing community, which is based on the inshore fishery. A significant number of fishermen fish out of Lynn fishing fleet. There is also an important plant processing sector based on the inshore fishery, which mainly produces mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps. The fishery is one of the most important in the country and local people feel strongly about it. They and their families have been fishing it for generations, and their views are highly traditional. Their primary concern is conservation of stocks—to them, that is paramount. They are concerned about other issues, not least control of fisheries and access to their waters, which fall within UK territorial waters.
	I am concerned that, at some stage, those waters might one day be opened up to other European Union countries. That would be a disaster. The common fisheries policy has failed dismally to control North sea stocks—just look at the populations of cod, herring and haddock. Those reserves have been hideously depleted. The time has now come for this country to repatriate its fisheries. If we do so, we shall at least have control over a precious resource, which could be managed through bilateral agreements with other EU countries. Our local fishermen feel strongly about that, but they feel particularly strongly that their inshore fishery should not be opened up in any way to other EU countries.
	Our fishermen also feel strongly that they must work with other competing interests in the Wash. Obviously, the Bill is highly relevant to that. They already have to work within the confines of a Royal Air Force bombing range on the Wash. At this time of international conflict in particular, when local RAF squadrons are being deployed to the Gulf and flying out of RAF Marham near the Wash on reconnaissance missions over targets in Afghanistan, those ranges play an important role in ensuring that the RAF is properly trained. The fishermen, many of whom are war veterans, understand their importance.
	The fishermen also have to work with dredging and alongside the threat of wind farms. I shall say a quick word about dredging.

David Chaytor: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to have referred to the threat of wind farms? Does he consider wind energy a threat?

Henry Bellingham: I shall elaborate in a moment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that wind farms are a threat to the interests and livelihood of some local fishermen. I support the Bill, however, as do most fishermen in my constituency.

Helen Clark: I would like more detail about how the lives and livelihood of local fishermen are threatened by that renewable energy source.

Henry Bellingham: I shall come to that in a moment, but I must first deal with dredging, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I shall return to her point. The fishermen want to work within the confines of the Bill, but they also have their concerns, which I hope will be addressed.
	Worries have been expressed over the past few years about dredging, carried out with permission from the Crown Estate, for the building industry, the replenishment of sea defences and export. About 28 per cent. of all marine-dredged sand and gravel is exported. I want that to be reduced. It is one thing to deplete a precious national resource for our own needs, but its export should be queried.
	I understand that new planning guidelines are being introduced for marine dredging, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. The system known as the Government view is to be replaced by more formal planning guidelines, which is important because dredging obviously has an impact on biodiversity. There is a significant short-term impact and recolonisation begins soon after dredging, but it can take up to five years for an area's biological status quo to be restored. That is very important.
	In the run-up to the 1997 election, at which time I temporarily left the political arena, there was a significant debate in north-west Norfolk about Docking shoal and Race bank. Local fishermen were concerned as they thought that insufficient account was being taken of their interests. They are also convinced that the significant dredging for sand for the Skegness to Maplethorpe section of sea defences impacted on their industry.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is so open-minded and I hope that the respective marine authorities that the Bill would introduce have a mechanism to deal specifically with dredging applications. I hope, too, that the new planning guidelines will play a significant role and that the new authority can be involved in shaping them.
	On wind farms, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that the Government's objective is for renewable energy to make up 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity requirement by 2010. I understand that the Crown Estate alone has 13 sites on which draft agreements have been entered into, and that two are in my constituency: Cromer and Lynn. On the Crown Estate sites alone, about 480 turbines will be constructed.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) that it is essential that we meet the renewable energy requirement or, indeed, surpass it. We must place as much emphasis as possible on renewable energy. I accept that wind farms will play an important role, and obviously offshore wind farms will play a critical role in providing that energy. My concern relates to the impact that those wind farms will have on inshore fisheries.
	Obviously, during construction, those inshore fisheries will be disturbed. The site at Lynn will have 60 turbines. I think that there will be 30 turbines on the Cromer site. It will be a huge construction operation. That will certainly have an impact on local fisheries, including that at King's Lynn. Exclusion zones will, rightly, be in place around wind farms, and we do not yet know what effect propellers on turbines will have on fish shoals and other marine habitats. More research needs to be done.
	I am not trying to be negative about wind farms. We must have wind farms, but their location will be crucial. I would like the competent marine authorities to co-opt on to the particular bodies the relevant fishing interests: for example, in my constituency, the Lynn fishermen's co-operative and the eastern sea fisheries committee. When the Bill goes into Committee, we could consider writing in a requirement to give paramount importance to inshore commercial fisheries. There is currently nothing in the Bill about fisheries. I have no doubt that if such a clause is inserted and we have a mechanism whereby the relevant marine authorities are involved in the planning process—both the Department of Trade and Industry consents for wind farms and the new planning guidelines for dredging—the Bill will have a beneficial effect for inshore fishermen.
	I have no hesitation in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. He has been fortunate in the ballot.

Stephen Pound: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the rather strange subject of the problems of wind farming, as one who spent some time before the mast and has rubbed up against a few fishing folk in his daily, I have found that the average fisherman gets a richer crop if there is some obstruction on the sea bed such as a gun turret or ammunition platform. He describes wind farms as a menace to fisheries, and prays in aid the problem of the propellers. Is he concerned about the flying fish quota? How on earth can an aerial propeller cause any problems for marine fishermen?

Henry Bellingham: I think that we need more research on the matter. I am flagging it up as a potential problem. If the propeller of a large turbine is going around very fast in a high wind, it is bound to create huge ripple effects on the water within its vicinity. I am merely pointing out what a number of fishermen who are far better qualified than me have pointed out—that that could have an effect on shoals coming in. What we surely need is more research. I am not didactic.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: Of course I shall because the hon. Gentleman is an expert on wind farms.

David Chaytor: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that, but it is not true. I was simply curious about the logic of his reasoning. If there is a high wind, it is fairly obvious that there will be more than a ripple effect on the water. Any additional ripple effect by the turbines of a wind farm will surely be absolutely negligible.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there will be a counter ripple effect by the propellers of the turbine. It has been pointed out to me by various fishermen that a man-made system that interferes with the delicate ecosystem may well produce side effects that we are not aware of at the moment. That is why there should be proper research into this.
	In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. As the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said, he is highly regarded and respected on both sides of the House. He came first in the ballot and he has put a huge amount of effort and research into the Bill. I am particularly impressed by the extent to which he has discussed the Bill very openly with all the different groups, bodies and organisations involved.
	As I pointed out, the Bill is not perfect, but it is certainly an important step forward. We are all aware that there is a critical need to preserve this type of habitat. It is vital that the Bill is given a Second Reading and is discussed in great detail in Committee so that we can improve it and make it acceptable to every organisation involved.

David Chaytor: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on coming first in the ballot and on choosing this Bill to present to the House. I am very pleased that a Conservative Member is promoting such a Bill. The Conservatives' new-found support for environmental policies is most welcome. Perhaps this Bill provides a new interpretation of the concept of clear blue water.
	If Conservative Members have not yet read last Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, I would very much commend to them the article by the editor of The Ecologist. It is essentially an appeal to members of the Conservative party, suggesting that in their fundamental review of policies and principles there may be considerable mileage to be gained by taking a much more proactive view in support of environmental policies. In the past, there has been a suspicion that their affection for the environment has been largely due to the fact that some of them owned so much of it. Now there is an opportunity for them to show their support for sustainable development out of genuine principles and care for the wider good of the community.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge has done the House a service in bringing the marine environment to our attention. My constituency is a long way from the sea, so it is important that I speak on behalf of my constituents, some of whom have contacted me on this issue, to demonstrate that it is not just an issue for those of us with coastal constituencies. The marine environment is important to us all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said earlier in the debate, the oceans are the drivers of our international climate system and it is completely impossible for us to separate ourselves from what happens in the oceans.
	I have a particular interest in what happens in the north-west coastal waters and the Irish sea and I am particularly concerned about the historic levels of contamination of that sea not only from the normal economic processes of extraction, the laying of pipelines and other forms of mineral exploration, but the radioactive emissions that have been pumped out from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing station in Cumbria for many years. I congratulate the Government—and to some extent the previous Government—on the steps that have been taken in recent years to tighten the regulations over radioactive emissions into the oceans, but we still allow far too much radioactivity and radioactive materials to leak out into the seas around the United Kingdom, and particularly into the Irish sea from Sellafield. I would be very grateful to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge on that and grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment referred to it in his reply to the debate.
	I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that if the Government have any reservations about the detail of the Bill, for example if the Department of Trade and Industry has concerns about the impact on the oil and gas industries, they can be dealt with in Committee and should not lead to the Bill being sabotaged today.
	As other hon. Members wish to speak, and as other Bills for consideration today deserve progress, I shall be brief. I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber will support the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. I support it for two main reasons, the first of which is the absolute need to recognise the importance of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. I think that there has been a new public understanding of the issue in recent years. People now appreciate that there has been a drastic loss of wildlife and plant species and that that loss cannot continue. We have to take action to conserve and reverse the loss of biodiversity.
	The second main reason that I support the Bill is the opportunities that it will create for greater scientific understanding of what happens in the ocean. I think that many people have started to realise that understanding the secrets of the oceans can provide the key to dealing with the problems facing the continuation of civilised life on earth. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the potential benefits of increasing our understanding of what happens under the sea, including the possibility of generating new sources of renewable energy, and I entirely endorse those comments. We have to gain greater scientific knowledge of what happens in the deeper parts of the ocean.
	I should like to raise two issues. Although the hon. Member for Uxbridge may not be able to address them today, I should be grateful if the Minister will address them briefly. The first issue is European legislation, because much of the environmental legislation that has effective or been adopted by the United Kingdom has been driven by Europe. I think that that fact is one of the very good reasons why we should have closer and not more distant links with the European Union. How will the Bill relate to current European legislation on the environment?
	Secondly, and returning to the issue of radioactive emissions to the seas surrounding the United Kingdom, because of emissions from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, the Irish Government have announced their intention—they may already have taken action—to cite the United Kingdom Government in legal action over a breach of our obligations under the Oslo and Paris—Ospar—convention. That convention seeks to reduce radioactive emissions to the ocean almost to zero. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Uxbridge will say how his Bill might link with the provisions of the Ospar convention, and if the Minister will say something about the Irish legal challenge—although I appreciate that it might be difficult to say much about it at the moment.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) showed great judgment in selecting to promote the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, and he has demonstrated his characteristic eloquence and his great passion for the subject both in his speech and his interventions. It is a most important issue and I welcome his collaborative approach to it. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that, because of his responsible approach to the issue and his diligence in consulting on it very widely, the Bill should be considered in Committee so that all the issues that it raises can be properly explored.
	My constituency of Castle Point has important coastal and marine sites and bird colonies of international importance, although I shall not go through their names lest Labour Members challenge me on my knowledge of the subject, which is very small indeed. I am not an expert.
	My constituency includes Canvey island and Two Tree island, with its population of avosets, and the coastal areas of Benfleet and Hadleigh. They are most important natural habitats, particularly for marine wildlife and for birds. In the early 1990s, in my first term in the House, I had some success in gaining some protection for those habitats, and I would welcome the opportunity to win more protection for the marine habitats around my constituency. Consequently, I support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to enact his Bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction, although I accept that some fine-tuning is necessary. For that reason, I hope that the Bill will go through to a Standing Committee.
	On renewable energy, the arguments about wind farms are understandable. I share the concerns that have been expressed and welcome the comfort offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that there should be a great deal more research on the impact of such devices on the marine environment, the fishing industry and so on. It would be nonsense to proceed with such an innovation without doing that research and without knowing the consequences of that action.
	I know that hon. Members want to make progress, but I shall raise one more key issue. My hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk mentioned dredging. That issue is important to my local area of south-east Essex, which includes much of the Thames estuary. The proposal from P&O for Shell Haven port development will have consequences yet unfathomed for the marine environment of the Thames estuary and beyond, out to sea. It is proposed to dredge millions of cubic metres of spoil from the sea bed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk said, not only will that destroy the biodiversity in the local area for at least three to five years, but as dredging must be repeated every three to five years, the local marine environment will never recover. The proposal has not been thought through. I hope that we can focus on it in this place and in other places when the time is right.
	I hope that the Bill will proceed to Committee, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on his initiative.

Barry Gardiner: This morning's debate was, of course, interrupted by a statement at 11 am on the deployment of military forces. Those of us who are regulars on a Friday morning sometimes feel like the poor bloody infantry, because we come to the Chamber armed with our speeches, which we have spent long hours preparing, and sometimes we feel that our commanders are rather like those in the first world war.

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: To a distinguished long-serving member of the infantry, yes.

Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that long hours are spent not only in preparing our speeches, but in delivering them?

Barry Gardiner: Indeed. All the infantry who came into the Chamber on the Government side this morning support the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and wish his Bill well. I came armed with a good many more words than I now intend to speak because I wish it well. I support it fully and fulsomely, and my hon. Friends agree that it is an excellent Bill. If it is talked out, we certainly will not be responsible.
	If and when the Bill gets on to the statute book, it will be a major achievement for the hon. Member for Uxbridge and a tribute to the dedication of all those involved in marine wildlife conservation. It will be a triumph for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Marine Conservation Society. They have all lobbied for a long time to address the anomaly between land conservation and marine conservation. I acknowledge the continued commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister to introduce effective marine legislation. His support from the Government Benches, which I trust will continue today, is welcome.
	The Bill is fundamentally sound, and sets out a practical and positive way in which marine sites can be protected. It will fill in the gaps in the protection of the marine environment by designating nationally important sites in the waters around England and Wales, which are not covered by European designations. Earlier this year, the RSPB commissioned research in support of the Bill to highlight marine environments that could receive protection and management. I shall cite just two for their importance.
	Dungeness is on a headland on the Kent coast between Folkestone and Hastings. The site is nationally important for populations of great-crested grebes—there are more than a 1,000 birds at that site—and red-throated divers, of which there are more than 300; they feed offshore in winter. The area is also a vital feeding ground in summer for birds, including internationally important breeding populations of common terns, little terns and mediterranean gulls. Sometimes it is right to follow the advice of one's parliamentary researcher, and sometimes it is wrong. When I was filling in the slip for my entry in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", my researcher advised me most heartily not to say that I was an avid bird watcher. I ignored that advice and am pleased that I share the distinction of being a member of the RSPB with the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I know that he will appreciate the importance of the bird colonies that I have just mentioned.
	Another important site is Waldrons reef, offshore to the east of Bognor Regis, where there is an extensive area of sandstone bedrock. Mystery surrounds the origin of the angular boulders that are known as sarcens; some people think that they are glacial deposits, others that they are discarded ballast stones from early shipping. However, the underwater wildlife there includes an amazing collection of 24 species of sponges, as well as cuttlefish, tompot blennies, burrowing anemones, slipper limpets and hermit crabs.
	Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) spoke about an article in The Daily Telegraph. I shall refer to one published on 13 October 2000 which told a wonderful story about the discovery of a wildlife-rich reef offshore near the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset. Apparently, the reef is the size of 50 football pitches and lies in just 25 m of water; it is not a coral reef but a reef built of ross worms, which construct protective hollows using mud and sea shells. The fact that such amazing natural features are still being discovered around our coasts illustrates perfectly the need for a proper inventory of those sites so that they can be protected.
	The Bill has the potential to protect specific species as well as species-rich sites similar to those that I have just outlined. I pay tribute to the research of Mr. Chris Wood into Eunicella verrucosa or the pink sea fan, a species that will undoubtedly benefit from the Bill. Eunicella verrucosa is one of only two sea fans that grow in British waters. It is a soft coral found in south-west England, unlike the northern sea fan, Swiftia pallida, which occurs in western Scotland. It is a slow-growing and long-lived species, which is especially prone to damage caused by fishing gear and careless divers. It is a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 2000 and is one of the marine species for which a biodiversity action plan has been prepared. The aim of the current recording of the sea fan by the Marine Conservation Society is to add to the knowledge of sea fan distribution, habitat and condition and complement other research aimed at preserving the species.
	Sea fans are filter feeders and can be found in rocky areas. They are oriented across the current and are sufficiently flexible to withstand quite a bit of buffeting. The problem that the hon. Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) highlighted with wind power and the cross currents that it could create will probably not trouble the sea fan too much. Sea fans normally live deeper than any wave surge, so are not usually seen in water shallower than 20 m. Fans grow typically in an open rocky habitat among dead men's fingers and ross coral.
	The species is located in the south-west waters of the British isles, but can also be found around the south-western coasts of Europe, the Mediterranean and north-west Africa.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that listing the idiosyncratic habits of obscure species is a technique that is often used by those who wish to delay the progress of a Bill?

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but he will notice that I am speaking at twice my usual rate in order to put on record the reasons why the Bill is important without impeding its progress. I want to allow time for other hon. Members to do exactly the same thing. The Bill deserves our support and I have many sheaves of paper to help me to express that support. I assure him and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall make absolutely sure that I try to keep well within time on this occasion.
	The pink sea fan is what I call a "sodof". I should point out that I use that term not to try to stop any further interventions, but to explain why the pink sea fan is important. We are all familiar with items that are "bogofs"—buy one, get one free—but the pink sea fan is a "sodof", as people can save one, develop one free. That is the case because it supports a further unique species, the sea fan anemone or amphianthus dohrnii. For the benefit of our Hansard reporters, let me say that I shall ensure that they receive the correct spelling. The sea fan anemone is another biodiversity action plan species. This little anemone, which rarely exceeds 1 cm in width, generally attaches itself to the branches of sea fans, although it may also occur on other tall structures such as hydroids and worm tubes. As it normally reproduces asexually by basal laceration—a process whereby small fragments of tissue tear away from it and regenerate into tiny anemones—its distribution can be patchy and changeable. Where one occurs, there will often be others nearby, but it is difficult for them to spread. Recent information on distribution is limited, but suggests that there are concentrations along the south-western coast. Its small size means that it is likely to be overlooked.
	The Bill offers the potential to protect both species. The Marine Conservation Society considers that such protection would be hugely significant for the anemone and could lead to an increase in the number of sites in which it can be found. Both species are threatened by damage caused by unmanaged marine environments. As such, they are excellent examples of why the Bill must be enacted. That is why I have laboured my points at such length.
	I could talk further about the reasons why basking sharks will also benefit hugely from the Bill. They are incredible creatures, as anybody who is familiar with the marine environment will know.

Linda Gilroy: May I invite my hon. Friend, and, indeed, all hon. Members, to visit the National Marine Aquarium, where the basking shark is celebrated? I encourage him to continue his peroration about the pink sea fan, which I mentioned earlier. It is exactly the sort of organism that is not captured by current measures, but could be protected by the Bill.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. The basking shark is an extraordinary creature of which we should be proud, as it inhabits our native waters. It is a filter feeder that mainly consumes plankton. In the UK, basking sharks appear to favour a copepod called calanus finmarchus. Amazingly, they can filter almost 2000 cu m of sea water every single hour that they feed. Let me put that into context: it is the equivalent of an Olympic-size swimming pool of 50 m in length, with eight lanes.
	I shall not speak as much as I could about the basking shark. Suffice it to say that the Bill will protect the feeding areas of the shark. I hope that it will provide us with an opportunity to get more information than we currently enjoy about that unusual species.
	The Bill will require the sea fisheries committees, the local statutory inshore fisheries management bodies that operate in England and Wales, to be heavily involved in the management of sites set up as a result of the Bill. The SFCs are funded by a levy on local authorities but, with local authority finances under such pressure, funding for SFCs is not always a political priority. Let me mention at this stage that, should the Bill become law—I hope that it does—it is fundamentally important that a review be undertaken of the funding necessary to secure the future of both coastal fisheries and the marine environment.
	As SFCs will have a major role to play in ensuring that the Bill works in practice, the case for better funding of the SFCs is stronger than ever. Historically, they have had a role in managing special areas of conservation and sites of special scientific interest. The demands on their resources are for administrative work, including work on management plans, practical work on enforcement and fisheries monitoring.
	The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales has for some time been pressing for an arrangement that would share responsibility for SFCs' funding between national and local government. That would maintain SFCs' local base while making them more financially secure. The association is supported in its request for a review of funding by a recent House of Commons Agriculture Committee report on sea fishing, which recommended that
	"the funding arrangements for SFCs be re-examined in order to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties".
	In view of the SFCs' experience that managing a special area of conservation or an SSSI with a significant marine interest costs some £20,000 a year, I hope that local authorities will receive the funding necessary to fulfil their responsibilities under the Bill.
	I shall bring my remarks to a close so that others can speak in support of the Bill. I could not close, however, without speaking as the joint Chair of the all-party parliamentary sport and leisure industry group. I am fully aware that, when new legislation is introduced, there is often concern about the cost of implementing it. I mentioned earlier the costs that may be associated with the SFCs. However, at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of eco-tourism, and when we have a new Government Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of whose aims is to build links between farming, recreation, economic development and a range of activities, we should recognise that the Bill also has the potential to bring financial benefits in eco-tourism.

Linda Gilroy: I wonder whether my hon. Friend noticed from my earlier contribution that the south-west regional development agency has said that eco-tourism is almost as important as information and communications technology to the economy of the south-west, which is pre-eminent in these matters.

Barry Gardiner: I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying. As she knows from her area, and as many other hon. Members know from theirs, this is an extremely critical time for tourism in England and Wales. It has suffered much in recent months and the industry should realise that the Bill could help in the development of eco-tourism. I hope that the Government, when considering cost implications, will also consider the net benefits that could be achieved from supporting the Bill.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge not on his good fortune for coming first in the ballot—that is a matter of luck—but on his sound judgment in bringing the Bill to the House and on the way in which he has piloted it through. I wish him God speed and a fair wind.

Jonathan Djanogly: I support the Bill and join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on promoting it.
	It is surprising that, as an island nation surrounded by marine life, we have paid so little attention to the sea. The sea is a place of work in terms of fishing and energy, and has historically denoted our boundaries and signified our power. Although Britannia ruled the waves, we spent little time considering what is beneath them. Perhaps that is because we are not blessed with warm climates, and the cold waters put people off trying to understand the sea.
	Clearly, there is a new appreciation of marine life, the beauty of our environment, the dangers of pollution and the need for a proper environmental balance. On land, much thought has already gone into achieving such a balance and weighing up the rights of industry and those of local people and visitors. The balance between historical and future use has also been considered. However, that cannot be said about our marine environment.
	The existing legislative framework is haphazard. There is no shortage of laws to govern activities on our seas: they include legislation on merchant shipping, water resources, water industries and fisheries, and European regulations and various treaties. However, they tend to reflect effects on the marine industries rather than marine life. Indeed, the complexity of our laws often hinders the ability to introduce policies in favour of marine life.
	There is therefore a need for legal and policy frameworks to be directed at the protection of habitats and species. However, they need to balance environmental needs, to cater to the needs of industry and those of leisure and to provide a strategic and consistent approach, which has been lacking in the past.
	Our thinking about the sea is too disjointed. There have been many significant and worthy projects to clean up the nation's beaches. That has resulted in many excellent beaches, but most of the efforts have been directed at cleaning up the mess from the sea rather than considering the reasons for it. That is a good example of lack of strategy and joined-up thinking.
	Debates about fishing policies are also often disjointed. We argue with our neighbouring countries about who has rights over our fish, and we highlight the genuine plight of our fishermen, but we say little about why fish stocks are depleted. We need a framework whereby we can better understand our fish habitats and form our policies in the context of a proper understanding of the environment in which fishing takes place. We can thus prioritise and balance the interests of consumers, fishermen and the environment.
	As on land, conservation at sea is about not only protecting beautiful sites but understanding the environment so that we can make proper choices about development. Unlike the sea, little is natural about our land environment. Fields and hedgerows are man's invention, and foxes have to be controlled because we have chickens and lambs. The environment that we enjoy has been moulded over the centuries. As we develop in different ways, our views about the sort of environment that we want have changed. We have developed a regulatory environment to provide a framework for that.
	That has not happened in the marine world. It could be said that that was because the sea was inaccessible, but that would undermine the beauty and value of the vast range of habitats and species that exist in our marine environments. I shall not argue in favour of any specific sort of marine environment or weigh up the value of different sorts of habitats or species. However, we must create the regulatory environment for doing that. Indeed, in some local marine environments the national interest may better be served by the presence of oil and gas industries or by carrying out exploration, but that is not the case in many areas. Some areas will be suitable for touristic development of the sea from an environmental point of view, and some will be unsuitable. There needs to be a regulatory environment for the enforcement of policy decisions that also allows the proper consideration of the issues.
	The key will be adaptability, which will be even more necessary at sea than on land. For instance, a suitable place to allow fishing this year may not be suitable next year, fish being more transient than, say, cattle. The same point could be used to show that there is a need better to understand the fish habitats around our shores so that we can strategically evaluate fishing in environmental terms.
	It is also important to consider the marine environment, how it relates to current sea industries, such as shipping, fishing, oil and gas, and how it relates to the industries of the future. Many hon. Members have referred to that aspect.

Stephen Pound: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the subject of marine fauna, will he join me in paying tribute to the promoter of the Bill for introducing for the first time in the House a discussion of the worm-like Enteropneusta of the phylum hemichordata, commonly known as the sea squirt? For the first time we have had a sensible discussion on this simple but pleasant creature, which is noted in biology primarily for having undiscernible gonads. We have been educated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been a pleasure to hear about sea squirts. I admit to knowing very little about them before this debate.
	One of the great impending debates for the House and the nation in the next few years is the future of our energy policy, which could involve harnessing wave or wind energy. Either of those sources of energy used at sea will have important official, aesthetic and habitat implications for the environment of the area in which they are sited, as has been discussed.
	It would be preferable to have a clear strategic view of where hundreds, possibly thousands, of windmills are to be positioned, rather than to bumble through on a one-off application basis, which would lack consistency. An effective strategy could save huge costs, would reduce inconsistencies and enable the benefits and disadvantages to be considered on a balanced basis. It should not be assumed that having a proper regulatory framework would work to the disadvantage of sea industries, or the tourism industry.

Linda Gilroy: Would the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that those interested in marine conservation should be able to accommodate those needs, because climate has a significant impact on our use of energy and on the health of the seas, and of plankton in particular? It would be imperative for us to find such accommodation, and that should not be a difficulty.

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with the hon. Lady. That is another reason why adaptability will be important—as the hon. Lady said, climates affect the sea.
	The Bill could also be used to encourage marine-related tourism and to develop educational facilities, which are currently significantly underdeveloped in Britain compared with other countries. At the moment, most consideration goes into securing rare habitats and species, but the emphasis needs to be changed so that we also encourage the study and enjoyment of the many excellent habitats that are currently thriving but about which we know relatively little because not much data are available.
	Where we have identified species or habitats that are considered to be of such national importance that they should be protected, it is necessary that the power exists to enforce that policy if it is to work. Again, that will require flexibility because of the significant variations in habitat movement, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has said, and seasonal changes that exist in the sea. The relevant statutory conservation agencies should be able to implement management schemes on a site-by-site basis.
	As we are an island nation, the sea is the key part of our national psyche. We should value it as an important part of our environment, and the Bill should provide the mechanism for us to give marine conservation the status that it requires and deserves.

Tom Watson: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on achieving the Second Reading of this important Bill and on initiating a debate that has perhaps occasionally been more educative than we would require or even like. Like Uxbridge, my constituency is landlocked. In fact, it is probably about as far from the sea as any constituency in this country, so I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for presenting a Bill that would ensure that future generations of people from Uxbridge, West Bromwich, East and beyond would enjoy marine habitats for years to come.
	I speak in this debate because West Bromwich is the nature capital of the midlands. I am lucky to have at the heart of my constituency the beautiful Sandwell valley—an ancient woodland and green space that has brought pleasure to countless generations of ramblers, anglers, scouts and guides, boaters and pond dippers, amateur botanists and swan watchers. In fact, the valley lies at the centre of the Black Country urban forest, and its important role in black country life has been protected only because of the laws that have enabled us to resist the tarmackers and the bulldozers. I welcome the Bill because it would allow us to extend that protection to our marine environments throughout the country.
	Our valley is home to many of England's key species, including the speckled wood butterfly, the pipistrelle bat, the wood anemone and the wood warbler, so the hon. Member for Uxbridge will know that, like him, we in West Bromwich take our wildlife protection seriously. In fact, we have heard that he is a keen ornithologist, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). I invite them to come, at any time, to join generations of bird watchers who have walked along the streets of West Bromwich to Sandwell valley patiently to spot kingfishers, snipe, grey herons, willow warblers, whitethroats, skylarks, kestrels, green woodpeckers, redshanks, little ringed plovers, shovellers, swifts, sand martins, house martins and swallows.
	The provisions for the protection of nationally important sites in England and Wales are substantially strengthened under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Government recognised that they had to take further action to protect SSSIs on land and the species and habitats in them, but I also welcome the Government's recognition that we should do more to protect our marine environment. I understand that DEFRA will publish a marine stewardship report next March because it recognises that today the imbalance between land-based and marine wildlife is greater than ever before.
	We should not forget that three out of four of the world's biggest oil spills have threatened the British coast and waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the salt marshes, three quarters of which have been lost during the past century. Some 50 per cent. of the deaths of the endangered northern right whale—sadly, now extinct in British waters—are caused by being hit by ships in coastal waters, so it is now time to shift our focus to tackling the multitude of problems that face our unique natural environments.
	I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for the work that they did in 1981 in securing the marine nature reserves. I afraid that I was not around on 27 November 1962, when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow first raised the issue, but the action that some hon. Members have wanted to take has been overdue for some years.
	We have had a very good debate today, and it has involved my first foray with the infantry on a Friday. This is my second contribution after my maiden speech, and I welcome the easy ride that Opposition Members have given me, but I shall now sit down and let my right hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate.

Michael Meacher: I thoroughly agree with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). This is one of those debates that, in my opinion, make private Members' days well worth having, not only for the purpose of finding out about obscure marine species such as the sea squirt—sometimes given its Latin designation, of which I have never heard and of which I dare say I shall never hear again—but, mainly, for the purpose of engaging in a serious, non-partisan examination of a very important but relatively neglected issue.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), as sincerely as all who have spoken, on his choice of Bill. Having, as he said, won the lottery, he may not have got the money, but I think he has dealt with all the begging letters and petitions extremely well in coming up with this as his final choice.
	The hon. Gentleman made a very fair, balanced, reasonable and supportive speech, to which I shall try to respond in like manner. He did say, however—I noted this particularly—that a much wider strategy than that contained in the Bill was needed if the marine environment is to be fully protected. That is true.
	I shall take this opportunity briefly to set out the Government's approach to the marine environment and conservation, because, as others have said, such opportunities regrettably do not occur very often. I am aware from the speeches of Members in all parts of the House that there is a general wish to ensure that we act together to conserve our precious marine biodiversity. The Government entirely share that feeling. Indeed, in a keynote speech in March this year, the Prime Minister set the tone when he said that the Government would launch measures to improve conservation here and abroad, including the preparation of a series of marine stewardship reports. I shall return to that in a moment.
	It has been said that some 50 per cent. of Britain's biodiversity—more than 40,000 species—exists in the marine environment. Our oceans and seas cover more than 70 per cent. of the earth's surface. Oceans and seas offer us food from fishing and aquaculture, and opportunities to exploit renewable energy sources such as wind power. I shall return to that later as well. They are an important influence on the climate, and are important in breaking down waste. One speaker referred to the mess coming in from the sea; the mess going out to the sea from the land worries me much more, but there is certainly a problem. On or under the sea bed are minerals and energy supplies.
	As others have said, we have made major strides in improving conservation on land, notably in the landmark Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which I was privileged to take through the House. It will give English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales all the tools that they need—I think—to ensure that sights of special scientific interest on land are brought into a favourable condition. The Government, indeed, have set a pretty testing specific target to bring 95 per cent. of them into such a condition by 2010. However, as almost all hon. Members have said, the sea surrounding us deserves similar attention.
	We acknowledge that not enough progress has been made on the marine environment. For several reasons, we do not have a comprehensive system of marine protected areas in British waters. One reason is that we do not yet possess the same depth of knowledge about marine ecosystems as we have about the terrestrial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said, we are sometimes unaware of the biodiversity because we cannot see it, so we are not immediately aware when it is lost or damaged.
	Another reason is that the marine environment is ecologically more complex: setting the limits of protected areas is problematic in an environment whose nature is fluid and ever changing. A further reason is that the sea has historically, for 2,000 years or more, been available for us to use, exploit and traverse as we please. There are few individual ownership rights over the sea—that should not change—and the uses of the sea are subject to a range of different mechanisms for the management of human activities that has developed over time. A large percentage of those mechanisms are agreed in European and international forums, which I must admit adds to their complexity.
	We should not underestimate the problems associated with developing an approach, which the Bill is designed to do, to managing our influences on the marine environment, in recognition of its great ecological value. It would be a mistake to develop a system of protected areas that could give rise to the presumption that the rest of the marine environment was of no concern. To be fair to the hon. Member for Uxbridge, he said no such thing—in fact, he acknowledged the other legitimate interests in our marine environment. Although the designation of protected areas is important, as Minister for the Environment I am the first to say that it is not enough. That is why the Government have already started initiatives to take a broad view of the needs of biodiversity in the marine environment as a whole.
	Despite standing by my statement that we have not done enough, we have recently made a good deal of progress in protecting the seas surrounding our coast. Many activities that damage the marine environment have now been banned or brought under tight controls. We no longer dump sewage sludge or low-level radioactive waste in the sea—those initiatives were started under the previous Government. Tighter controls have reduced the amount of mercury and cadmium going into the north-east Atlantic. Furthermore, we have banned the use of many pesticides that are harmful to marine life, and played a full part in European and international efforts to protect the oceans globally.
	The Bill, which is about identifying and conserving nationally important marine sites, needs to be seen against the background of the habitats and birds directives, both because they already exist and so must be taken into account, and because their presence adds to the complexity of the mosaic that is our legacy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) gave some details that I can now confirm. To date, within territorial waters, there are 133 marine special protection areas and 151 candidate special areas of conservation. Our best estimate of the total area of coastal and marine Natura 2000 sites is about 1.5 million hectares—a considerable area. The new regulations that we are introducing will place a duty on the Secretary of State to designate SACs and SPAs between 12 nautical miles—the limit of national waters—and 200 nautical miles from baseline. That, too, represents a substantial extension of conservation areas. The UK will be the first EU member to introduce such regulations.
	My Department has let a contract with the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee to identify and agree relevant habitats and species in that 12 to 200-mile marine zone, to develop selection criteria and refine habitat definitions and to collate known data on those habitats and species. The committee is due to report in March, after which the Government will move to consider potential site identification.
	One Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, I think—referred to the Darwin mounds, which are interesting. They are likely to be the first candidate for declaration as a special area of conservation once the new marine regulations are in place. The Darwin mounds—this is new to me—are an example of sandy coral mounds and they are no less fascinating for being in the cold, deep waters of the Rockall trough rather than the tropical waters in which we would normally expect coral reefs to reside. They are important not only as species in their own right, but as the habitat for sponges, starfish, worms, sea urchins, sea stars, gastropods, crabs and deep-sea demersal fish. I am amazed to find that all those marine species, let alone the coral mounds to contain them, are so near our shores, but that is a fact.
	The key point for the hon. Member for Uxbridge is that we recognise that there may be gaps where data have still to be obtained and reviewed and in the coverage of nationally important marine wildlife and habitats. In our view, that should be addressed by the review of marine nature conservation.
	I established that review and the working group to undertake it in 1999 to evaluate the success of previous marine nature conservation measures and to make proposals to improve marine nature conservation. The review is led by my Department and made up of a wide range of stakeholder organisations. I must say that I hate the word "stakeholder", but it applies to the relevant interests. The review includes other Departments, countryside agencies, the non-governmental organisations and, significantly, the commercial and recreational interests, which need to be part of the debate.
	I should make a point in parenthesis. Several Members said that three marine nature reserves are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There are in fact four: Skomer, Lundy, Strangford Lough and St. Kilda, but that is a small matter of detail.
	The working group published its interim report in May. It is a good review that attempted to highlight the full range of options on the way forward, from a complete overhaul of the current system to making minor changes. I am very interested in the working group's proposal of a regional seas pilot scheme in the Irish sea to test some ideas developed during the review. We shall consider that and, if we decide to proceed, we hope that the scheme might start in early 2002, with the results of the pilot available in early 2004.
	Several hon. Members referred to the marine stewardship report, which is relevant to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in March that the Government are to launch measures to improve marine conservation here and abroad, including a series of marine stewardship reports. The first will set out the Government's goals for an integrated and sustainable management of the marine environment across the range of marine sectors.
	The views of key stakeholders will be listened to at three workshops, the first of which I chaired in the past week. It was a hard-hitting session, with the commercial and industrial interests and the conservation interests discussing their differences frankly and straightforwardly. Both sides want to find a compatible way forward.

Tam Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend give any really heavyweight interests that were critical of the Bill, and the reasons why?

Michael Meacher: I will come to that. Commercial and industrial interests are undoubtedly concerned about an extension of the designation process. The issue is whether it is possible to find compatibility between those and other interests. As I have explained—I have given the figures—there are already substantial levels of designation, totalling about 1.5 million hectares. It is not surprising that those interests are concerned about the possible impact of future designations. That is a crucial point in relation to the Bill and its future.
	We are pursuing internationally agreed strategies under annexe V of the Oslo and Paris convention, which include reducing or eliminating inputs of hazardous and radioactive substances in the north-east Atlantic. Annexe V contains a strategy on the protection and conservation of ecosystems and biological diversity of the marine environment. Another is ACSCOBANS, if I can introduce another ghastly acronym. It stands for the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas; ACSCOBANS is a great deal better than having to repeat all that each time.

Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I will with some trepidation.

Barry Gardiner: I rise only to say that Askaban has a far more widely known meaning for all children in the United Kingdom because it is in the Harry Potter books. It is the prison for magical creatures. Since the Minister was referring to such magical creatures, perhaps it is appropriate.

Michael Meacher: One of the great pleasures is that I learn something every time I attend these debates. I am glad to know that. I missed it in my earlier life.
	ACSCOBANS came into force under the previous Government in March 1994. Its aim is to promote the close co-operation between parties with a view to achieving and maintaining a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans in the Baltic and North sea.

Tony Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I am getting a little concerned, but I give way.

Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend is talking about cetaceans. May I mention crustaceans? We should consider not just the welfare of marine wildlife, as it were, in the marine environment, but how they are subsequently exploited. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 278 on Barney the lobster? The Department is, I hope, working with Bristol university on the development of a crustastun. Will he give his ministerial attention to the welfare of lobsters and how they are cooked?

Michael Meacher: Sometimes one learns more than one bargained for. I cannot immediately remember the wording of that early-day motion but I know of my hon. Friend's real and deep concern on these matters. I shall look at it and promise to get in touch with him next week. Perhaps we can have some further discussion.

Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I think my generosity is getting the better of me.

Andrew Dismore: On the issue of cooking lobsters, I understand that Mr. Rick Stein has a theory that, if we keep a lobster in the deep freeze for some time beforehand, it chills it to such a degree that it does not realise it is being cooked.

Michael Meacher: I think that the Bill is about the preservation of marine species, not the subtleties of slaughtering particularly tasty species.
	The UK hosted the third ACSCOBANS meeting in July 2000. I mention that because several hon. Members raised the important question of bycatch. A resolution, which was strongly supported by the UK, setting clear limits on levels of incidental take of small cetaceans was agreed. Bycatch of whales or dolphin species above 1.7 per cent.—I do not know how the figure was arrived at but it is relatively low, I suppose—is regarded as unacceptable. To meet that target, an intergovernmental working group is developing a UK bycatch response strategy.
	Biodiversity action plans have been very effective on land and we are now trying to apply them at sea. As part of the UK's biodiversity action plan, there are specific plans for the conservation of 19 species, including six plans for group species—for baleen whales, tooth whales, small dolphins, commercial fish, deep-water fish and marine turtles. A co-ordinated steering group led by my Department is taking forward cetacean action plans working with representatives from non-governmental organisations, other Government Departments, the devolved Administrations, fishermen and other stakeholders.
	Let me turn briefly to the World Wildlife Fund oceans recovery campaign. Hon. Members will be aware of that campaign, so I shall take this opportunity to refer to some of its main objectives.
	First, it is seeking an improved network of marine protected areas to protect marine wildlife and habitats, and this Bill falls squarely within that aim. It supports the idea of an improved network of marine protection areas, which we are working to achieve through the application of the habitats and birds directives. It also supports the introduction of marine environmental high-risk areas, working under the auspices of the Ospar convention and through the development of ideas under the review of marine nature conservation. We support that objective and several of our initiatives are designed to achieve it.
	Secondly, it supports the introduction of fishing-free zones, which is an extremely important proposal. We support the principle of fishing-free zones where they are justified, but we have yet to see the scientific evidence to support their introduction in UK waters. There would also be difficulties with implementation, because under the EU common fisheries policy establishing protected areas in international fisheries requires agreement in the Fisheries Council. Socio-economic effects would also have to be considered, particularly as it is not Government policy to make compensation available as a result of closures put in place to protect stocks.
	Having said all that, I return to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and his Bill. I recognise the considerable work that has gone into it and the real commitment that the hon. Gentleman has shown in bringing it to the House today. The principle of taking action to identify and protect the most important marine sites is unquestionably a valuable one. The hon. Member for Mid–Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was very generous in his remarks, said that there was a gap in coverage of sensitive areas that will not be covered by designation under the habitats and birds directives. We acknowledge that, but if and when we legislate in this complex area, which is regulated by overlapping regimes and controls, we must make sure that the systems that we introduce do not further complicate an already complex, piecemeal mosaic. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk recognised, quite fairly, that we need to rationalise the present rather variegated framework. The question for the Government is whether the Bill is the most appropriate instrument for that purpose. I hope that I carry all hon. Members with me when I say that we must not apply a simplistic solution to a complicated problem.
	Legislating in the marine environment is certainly never easy. Several hon. Members have acknowledged that there are still serious unresolved concerns about the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to this very openly in relation to offshore oil and gas exploration, wind farms, ports development and certain sporting interests.
	I also noted that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) was seeking a derogation in the Bill for the interests of inshore commercial fisheries. That was one example. Additionally, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned the need for further research, which I entirely support, to be sure about conservation impacts. Therefore, there are problems. The Government believe that those legitimate interests have to be fully considered before the Bill, perhaps in modified form, can finally proceed.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I shall not give way now.
	I want to be as helpful as I can in the light of the virtual consensus on the Bill, but, for the reasons that I have just set out, we cannot support the Bill in its current form. Nevertheless, if it is the will of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading we are content to have further discussions in Committee with the Bill's promoter and sponsors. I hope that it will be understood that I cannot make any commitment at this stage on the Bill's ultimate fate, but we recognise the value of its objectives, the sincerity of its promoter, the manner in which he introduced it today and the support that it has received from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. We certainly share those concerns and interests and, as I said, we are content to have further deliberations in Committee on the application of its main provisions.

John Randall: I thank the Minister very sincerely for his comments, and I do not think that any of us could have wished for more than that commitment. Our intention was to have a constructive debate, and that is precisely what we have had today. I hope that we shall have just such a debate in Committee. I also thank hon. Members, both those who are inside and outside the Chamber, for their support on the issue, which is not as simple as it may sometimes seem. I am also grateful for the power of "the infantry", who have been very useful in this debate.
	Without taking anything for granted, I hope that the Bill will now be read a Second Time.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Legalisation of Cannabis Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Jon Owen Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I pay my compliments to the usual channels for making time available for me to argue in favour of my Legalisation of Cannabis Bill. When I first decided to promote the Bill, I did not think that I would be moving its Second Reading three days after the United Kingdom had seen the greatest change in its drugs policy in more than 22 years.
	I can think of at least one of my constituents who will be extremely pleased with the Home Secretary's recent decision. That constituent has suffered since birth from haemophilia, and he has been infected by contaminated blood transfusions, which were provided by the state, with HIV and hepatitis C. He may have been infected also with new variant CJD. To dull the pain of his condition and help him to sleep, he takes cannabis. He does so with the full approval of his doctors as the drugs that they would otherwise prescribe would be too damaging to his liver, which has been weakened by hepatitis C. As hard as I have looked, I have found no justice or rationality in the state's treatment of that man. I am glad that Home Secretary has acknowledged the situation.
	Statistics show that 68 per cent. of all drugs arrests are for cannabis use. The situation is absurd. When Commander Brian Paddick introduced his no-arrest policy, which has now been extended effectively nationwide, he said that, in the year prior to its introduction, 82 people in Lambeth had been arrested and charged with cannabis possession. It cost an average of £10,000 and several hours of police officers' time to take each one to court. The average fine for those poor people who were prosecuted was £45 each. If one considers the issue rationally, not with a "drugs is drugs and they must be stamped out at all costs" approach, it becomes clear that that is a massive waste of police time and taxpayers' money.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is therefore to be commended for viewing the matter sensibly and ditching the old "drugs is drugs" attitude. The changes bring us into the mainstream of European policy on cannabis and hopefully signal a change in thinking towards a harm-reduction philosophy and away from a moral crusade using the criminal justice system against recreational drugs. In the Bill, however, I go further than the Home Secretary and argue for the legalisation of cannabis.
	I understand that my right hon. Friend says that his move on Tuesday was not a first step towards legalisation, but all over the developed world, with the exception of Sweden and the American Federal Government, Governments are slowly taking incremental steps that can only result in full legalisation. I confidently believe that cannabis will one day be legalised. I even think that here in Westminster, where we are so well provided with late-night bars and cigarette machines, we may one day have our own coffee shop.
	The present policy, though an improvement, still has many flaws. Cannabis will remain illegal, and although most police forces will turn a blind eye, that will not solve the other problems that the illegality of cannabis causes. The argument for cannabis remaining illegal rests on the proposition that sometimes people must be forced to be free. Even on that principle, I do not see how keeping cannabis illegal can be justified. It is a substance of which society mildly disapproves and of which the medical profession very mildly disapproves.
	The damage done by continued illegality is great. The Home Office has estimated that the retail cannabis market in this country is worth about £1.5 billion a year—a huge sum, given that the total gross domestic product of agriculture in this country is worth only £5 billion. In quantity, the cannabis market is much larger than all the other illegal drug use in the country put together. In terms of profitability, it is more modest. The total drugs market in this country is worth £6 billion.
	That has several implications. First, £1.5 billion can pay for a lot of crime. That money maintains and supports organised crime and other activities—not only the promotion of hard drugs, but a range of other criminal activities are effectively subsidised by the illegal cannabis market.
	Secondly, it cannot be denied that cannabis is and will remain the initial point of contact for young people with the world of illegal drugs. According to the recent British crime survey, 45 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds have tried cannabis. That is a very large point of contact. For the vast majority people, cannabis is the only illegal drug that they have tried, except perhaps for a few experiments with other soft drugs, but for some people that is not the case. Because of the relative profitability of other drugs, the drug pushers and gangs have an incentive to turn people who approach them from cannabis to other, more dangerous drugs. Even if they succeed with only a small percentage of people, the profits for them are still great.
	As long as the supply of cannabis remains outside the regulation of the state, we will not be able to break the link between soft and hard drugs, although effective decriminalisation will at least help. We have relaxed our attitudes, but we still allow organised crime to dominate a large market and thereby come into contact with a huge number of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Legalisation would solve that problem decisively; it would bring the supply of cannabis under the effective regulation of the state, alongside tobacco and alcohol, and would bring an end to the criminality that prohibition has caused.
	I should like to draw parallels between cannabis prohibition and the American experience of alcohol prohibition, as I believe that they are similar and have become even more so. In fact, American prohibition laws were close to laws that now appear to apply in this country. It was not illegal in America during prohibition to possess or consume alcohol, merely an offence to supply or allow premises to be used to brew up. In both cases, a widely used recreational drug was illegal and put beyond the regulation of the state. In America, as with the prohibition of cannabis here, the effects on civic society were deeply corrosive. The murder rate in America during prohibition went up from five in 100,000 people to 10 in 100,000. When prohibition ended, it dropped to 4.5 in 100,000. It remained constant at the lower rate throughout the 1930s, '40s and '50s; it was only in the 1960s, when America and, indeed, the rest of the developed world had a second experience of prohibition as cannabis use began to become popular, that the murder rate rose again.
	In America, the percentage of spirits consumed during prohibition went up from 40 per cent. to 90 per cent. overnight. After prohibition, hard liquor sales dropped to 40 per cent again. The reason is clear—bootleggers found that spirits were far easier to smuggle and move around, and more profitable to sell. A clear comparison can be made with the drug pushers of today, who find harder drugs more profitable and easier to move around. Even more corrosive in America were the effects on civil life, the disdain of ordinary Americans for the law and the hypocrisy of those charged with implementing a law in which they did not believe and which, in many circumstances, they did not observe themselves.
	In addition, there was an enormous growth in organised crime. The greatest fillip that it ever received was being allowed to supply the whole country with alcohol; the damage caused to America has yet to subside fully. In 1960, John F. Kennedy entered the White House. His family's fortune came from his father, "bootlegger Joe", who made his money smuggling alcohol during prohibition. If the accounts that I have read are true, the success of John F. Kennedy in being elected owed much to that money.
	The use of cannabis in this country is not as widespread as the use of alcohol was in America during the 1920s and '30s. Similarly, the effects of prohibition on society are not as extreme or harmful, but they are comparable problems. The illegality of cannabis helps organised crime; it encourages criminality and disrespect for the law.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that to legalise is to legitimise, and that to legitimise is to encourage? Is he seeking to do that?

Jon Owen Jones: I am not seeking to encourage the use of cannabis, but to legalise and legitimise it because the harm caused to society by prohibition is greater than the harm caused to society by the drug itself. That is a balanced argument. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen and, perhaps, learn.
	I do not want to stress this point too much, but I should say that legalising cannabis would bring great economic benefits to the country. The agriculture sector, which is now in what appears to be a semi-permanent crisis, would be given a cash crop that is eminently growable in this country and would provide a much-needed boost. The Treasury would also benefit. Discounting the benefits from completely eliminating the waste of time and resources spent on prosecuting cannabis suppliers and users, the Library estimates that £1 billion a year could be made from the taxation of cannabis. That money could be spent on our schools and hospitals, and on reducing poverty. Given the Treasury's experience of tobacco taxation, I am confident that it could increase even that £1 billion of revenue.
	The major obstacle to legalisation is the problem of one country going it alone on an issue that affects every developed country. The problem is twofold: first, we would have to leave several, admittedly obsolete, international conventions; and secondly, we might have difficulties with drug tourism. It is because of that problem that I am so pleased by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Tuesday. As I said, it has brought us into the mainstream of European policy. I believe that it is in conjunction with our European partners, and perhaps liberalising countries such as Canada and New Zealand, that legalisation will happen.
	The Netherlands has already driven a coach and horses through the conventions, as would Switzerland if she were a signatory. It is high time that the conventions were re-examined, because the solutions to the drugs problem that were suggested in the early 1970s have not worked and can never do so. Together with other countries, we will need to renegotiate the 1972 UN convention so that we can focus on the drugs that damage our society, and not those such as cannabis, whose illegality causes so much harm.
	I hope that I have made it clear that the argument in favour of legalising cannabis does not rest on a principled liberal view about the freedom of the individual, although such a view exists, or on the enthusiasts' belief that cannabis is the solution to the world's problems. Rather, it is a pragmatic argument about how best to reduce the damage to our communities and to society. I do not believe that it is an argument that will carry my Bill into law, but I think that its momentum is now unstoppable. Sooner or later, cannabis will be legalised. The sooner we face up to that fact, the sooner we can stop the deeply corrosive effect that illegality causes to our society.

Tony Banks: As one of the Bill's supporters, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on introducing it to the House and on being given the opportunity to start the debate. Obviously, the Bill in its present form is not the one that will end up on the statute book. However, it is part of the debate for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has called and to which he contributed significantly in his recent announcement.
	Let me say from the beginning that I have never used cannabis. I have no moral objection to its use; it is just one of those things. During my youth, I seemed to be completely untouched by drugs—and also, regrettably, by sex and alcohol. Subsequently, I have been able to make some progress in the latter two areas, but I have still not used cannabis. I make those remarks because we are considering a matter of personal freedoms for individuals. This is not special personal pleading on my part.
	I first raised the issue of legalisation in the House more than 10 years ago. I remember the fallout—no one wanted even to discuss the proposal and it was made clear that it was not official Labour party policy. The Government of the time kept trying to make mischief by saying that it was our policy. It was a difficult time to raise the issue in the House, even if it was not necessarily difficult to raise it in the country. In the House, it was being treated as an issue of law and order rather than of personal freedom or health. I even tabled an early-day motion in 1993 calling for a royal commission to study the whole question of the law on cannabis.
	I make those points because, as my hon. Friend said, a certain imperative is now driving this matter. Although the Home Secretary has made it clear that the Government are just carrying out a revision, I believe that we are progressing towards the full legalisation of cannabis. It is right to do so because it is a matter of personal freedom. It is the duty of Governments not to tell people what they should smoke—or, indeed, what they should sniff up their noses—but to intervene where third parties are affected by people's habits.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks: No, I am not giving way.
	As my hon. Friend said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), there is no suggestion that people should be encouraged to smoke cannabis. I have never taken cannabis and have not the slightest intention of doing so because I do not want to inhale anything into my lungs. I do not smoke cigarettes either. As for the impact of cannabis as a drug, nicotine and the smoking of cigarettes is far more harmful. Given the impact on the health of individuals who use cannabis compared with that on the health of those who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, there is no sense whatever in maintaining a law against the use of cannabis. My hon. Friend mentioned the plight of one of his constituents. Doctors can prescribe all sorts of drugs but cannot prescribe cannabis as a means of pain abatement. What nonsense.
	What is happening on the ground is also nonsense. If one is waging a war against something—in this case it is a war against drugs—and not winning, the generals should call a halt and re-examine the strategy and tactics. To continue to proceed with them makes no sense. I am glad that the Conservative Opposition are examining their policy in respect of drugs and that a number of prominent Conservative Members have bravely spoken out. We are now having a proper debate and the taboos are dropping away. Once again, Parliament is falling into line with what is practised outside of this place, which makes a great deal of sense.
	As I said earlier, what is happening on the ground is that the police are rewriting the law themselves, so that it is being applied differentially throughout the country.

Brian Iddon: Is it not significant that probation officers, at their conference last week, changed tack from decriminalisation of just cannabis to decriminalisation of all drugs? They are the people in closest contact with the criminal elements.

Tony Banks: Precisely, because they are charged with carrying out the laws of the land. It is not just a question of Members of Parliament passing laws in this place; we must ensure that the resources are there to enforce the law and that the law itself is enforceable and has not been turned into nonsense.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central should proceed as firmly as he possibly can with his measure. It will not make the progress today that it merits, but this is part of a process which I firmly believe will eventually lead to the full legalisation of cannabis.

Andrew Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman talks about personal freedom. Will he examine what personal freedom is left for those who lose their lives through drug-taking and whose families lose a loved one? Does he accept that the taking of cannabis can lead to the taking of other drugs, which can devastate people's lives?

Tony Banks: Let me answer the last point. The rationale of what the hon. Gentleman has just said can equally be translated into saying that if someone has a dry sherry—the hon. Gentleman looks rather acetic, so perhaps he has done so in the past—that will lead to the individual becoming a total alcoholic. It does not work like that with alcohol and it would not work like that with drugs.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has not given due weight to the Home Secretary's announcement in a Select Committee meeting only a few days ago. It suggests a new approach—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January

Remaining Private Member's Bill
	 — 
	DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

MRS. MARY KELLY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Helen Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, the late Mrs. Mary Kelly, and the treatment that she received at Whiston hospital. I take no pleasure in doing that because it is very distressing. However, I owe it to Mrs. Kelly and her family to outline the appalling treatment that she received at Whiston, and the cavalier way in which the hospital dealt with complaints about it.
	I raise the matter at the request of Mrs. Kelly's family and because I believe that the case gives rise to serious anxieties about some of the operations at the hospital. I do not believe that the hospital has learned lessons from the case or that it is making any attempts to learn them. It is the earnest wish of Mrs. Kelly's family that those lessons are learned so that no one else has to suffer in the same way. I pay tribute to the late Mrs. Kelly's husband, her son and her daughter-in-law, who have said that that is their only motivation for raising the matter. Their conduct has been exemplary throughout, and I hope that outlining what happened to Mrs. Kelly will prevent another family from undergoing the same experience.
	Mrs. Kelly first saw her general practitioner in April 1998 because she was experiencing chest pains. She was referred to Dr. Ball, a cardiac consultant at Whiston hospital. She met the first obstacle when she was told that there was a 12-month wait even to be seen. She paid for a private consultation, and it will be no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister that the same consultant who could not see Mrs. Kelly at Whiston hospital was able to see her quickly at a private hospital. That is one of the best arguments for reconsidering consultants' contracts.
	After paying for a consultation, Mrs. Kelly was seen again at Whiston hospital where she underwent an ECG in November 1998. The case then began to get complicated. After the ECG, Mrs. Kelly was referred for an angiogram but she and her family believed that she was waiting for surgery. I appreciate that some confusion might arise because angiograms are often described by medical staff as a "surgical procedure". I know the Kelly family; they are intelligent and sensible people. The confusion therefore suggests that communication at Whiston was poor from the beginning.
	The problem was compounded by the fact that when Mrs. Kelly rang to ask for the date of the operation, she was always given the standard answer that the wait was 18 months. No one bothered to check what she was waiting for or to explain the position to her. She was an elderly lady, who did not like to make a fuss and so she went on waiting. While she waited, her family saw her transformed from being an outgoing, lively person.
	Mrs. Kelly also suffered from osteo-arthritis. She experienced severe chest pains on several occasions and she began to deteriorate. Once she went to the accident and emergency department at Whiston hospital because she was in so much pain, and her family told me that she waited from 5.30 pm until 2.45 am before she was admitted to a ward. During most of that time she was left by herself on a chair in a corner of the A and E department.
	That is absolutely appalling. Friends who have worked in A and E tell me that those suffering from chest pains are always a priority, and one of the key procedures is to calm and reassure the patient. Mrs. Kelly was not calmed and reassured by being stuck on a chair in the corner of a busy A and E department on a Saturday night with all the problems that we know such departments are subject to at such times. She was so distressed that on three or four subsequent occasions when she suffered severe pain she refused to go back to Whiston. Ironically, had she done so, she may have increased her priority for the procedures that she was waiting for, but the system worked against her from the beginning.
	Mrs. Kelly waited, and while she did so she continued to get worse until she finally had her angiogram in April 2000—two years after she first raised the problem with her GP. Only then was she placed on the waiting list for surgery. It was hoped that she would be operated on within three to four months, but she was not.
	Mrs. Kelly went on waiting, and while she was waiting the hospital discovered that she was also in need of an urgent hip operation. Of course, that could not be done until she had had cardiac surgery. It should have increased her priority for that cardiac surgery, but it did not, and the reasons why are hard to discover. The hospital told the family at a meeting in January this year that it was because the rheumatology department had not communicated with the cardiac department.
	When the hospital wrote to me on 30 March, it said that it had unified case notes, and that the relevant rheumatological correspondence was available to doctors in the cardiac department. Which was it? Either the two departments did not communicate, or if they did, it did not make any difference.
	Mrs. Kelly still waited, often in acute pain. She sometimes suffered vomiting and stomach pains because of the combination of different drugs she was taking for her various conditions. She was admitted to hospital again in August last year. She was issued with a wheelchair, and a once lively, outgoing person became almost completely housebound. She died on 7 October last year, still waiting for her operation.
	Mrs. Kelly's case is most distressing. It is the worst that I have encountered since I came into Parliament. It was compounded by the fact that when complaints were made about her case it was difficult to get the management at Whiston to take them seriously. Only Mike Murphy, who became the acting chairman of the trust for a time while this was going on, tried to resolve these complaints, and I pay tribute to him for his efforts.
	When Mrs. Kelly's son contacted me in August last year, I wrote to the hospital on 25 August, having followed my usual practice, which most hon. Members follow, of checking first with Mrs. Kelly to see whether she wanted me to take up her case. I received an acknowledgement from the chief executive dated 30 August, and then nothing until 29 September, when I was told that the hospital needed Mrs. Kelly's permission to correspond with me. I understand the need to be cautious in dealing with clinical information, but every other hospital I have ever communicated with knows that MPs do not take up cases unless they are asked to do so, and that in doing so there is implied permission for the hospital to discuss the case.
	We still heard nothing, so my office wrote again on 26 October informing Whiston hospital that Mrs. Kelly had died and asking for a reply. We still had no reply, and we wrote again on 6 November. On the same day, my staff rang the chief executive to tell the hospital once again that Mrs. Kelly had died. There was still nothing until 10 November, when we received a fax, which, by a strange coincidence, was a copy of a letter dated 6 November. That letter is instructive about the way in which Whiston hospital was dealing with complaints. I should like to give the House a flavour of that letter. In fact, it was so distressing that at the time I did not dare show it to Mrs. Kelly's family. It said:
	"I would like to offer my sincere apologies to Mrs Kelly and her family for the obvious anguish she has endured and would hope that this explanation offers some comfort to her."
	It went on to give the standards paragraphs telling me that I had the right to an independent review. Of course, those standard paragraphs are given to a patient who complains, not to a Member of Parliament. The letter was signed by the chief executive, and if that response is sent to a Member of Parliament, I shudder to think what other members of the public receive when they complain.
	Since then, there has been much correspondence. Indeed, the regional office of the NHS carried out a review into the complaints, and it sent me a copy, which arrived yesterday—presumably, after I had applied for this Adjournment debate. Meetings between representatives of the hospital and the family have also taken place, but Whiston hospital has still failed to address the real issues in the case, and I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with them in her reply.
	Why did Mrs. Kelly wait so long for an angiogram even when she was presenting with increased symptoms during that time? Why did she wait so long in A and E? What is the hospital doing to address the problems there? Why does there seem to be no proper communication between departments treating people in the same hospital? I have seen no attempt to address those problems in all the correspondence that I have received. Indeed, I am forced to conclude that the hospital is concerned with spin rather than substance. Believe it or not, the hospital employs someone called a patient and public relations manager. I do not want hospitals to be concerned with public relations—they are there to treat sick people, but Whiston hospital significantly failed to do so on that occasion.
	When I asked why Mrs. Kelly was not told she was on the waiting list for surgery when she rang the hospital, I was given the answer that
	"Mrs Kelly . . . was not told that she was not on the waiting list for surgery because at that time she was not on the waiting list for surgery."
	First, that was not what she was told and, secondly, I could describe the answer using a completely unparliamentary expression, which I would not be allowed to use here.
	I asked what priority Mrs. Kelly was given for her angiogram, and I was told:
	"Mrs Kelly was placed on the routine waiting list for coronary angiography. The delay between listing and the performance of the angiogram was due to the fact that at the time, this was the length of the routine waiting list."
	But Mrs. Kelly was not routine; she was presenting with further symptoms as time went on.
	The trust has no intention of addressing those problems. Even in its response to the review of its complaints procedure, in which 12 recommendations for change were made, the chief executive said that the investigation had found that the trust had satisfactory complaints procedures. Well, if the complaints procedures are satisfactory, I am Dutch! They are certainly not satisfactory.
	The tragedy is that the NHS is not like that in most of its manifestations. Recently, two of my very good friends, one of whom my hon. Friend the Minister will know, have been treated for life-threatening conditions in the NHS. They could not have received better treatment or better care. What has happened is not a failure of the NHS; it is failure of the management at that hospital and a complete failure of its communications procedures.
	Ironically, yesterday, another report on the hospital was published, dealing with the Michael Abram case. In that report, too, it is clear that the communication and record keeping was not of a sufficiently high standard and that, in many cases, procedures were not followed. That is exactly the same problem, but it will be of no comfort to the Kelly family if those problems are allowed to continue. The problems and the management of the hospital need to be addressed urgently.
	The Kelly family believed in the NHS, and they still do. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly worked hard all their lives. They paid their taxes, paid their dues and made no claim on the welfare state. The remaining members of the family have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether Mrs. Kelly would be alive today if the hospital had treated her better.
	The hospital let her down from the moment when she walked through the door, and continued to let her down even after she was dead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that it will not be allowed to let down other people, and other families, in the same way.
	This hospital must learn the lessons of what has happened, and it must put things right. So far, it has shown no intention of doing so. I hope that the Department will ensure that it does in future, so that there are no more cases like that of Mrs. Kelly.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for raising this serious matter. I hope that she will convey my condolences to her late constituent's family. I am extremely sorry that the concerns raised by Mrs. Kelly's son and, indeed, the wider family, which my hon. Friend has taken up so assiduously, were not dealt with either promptly or efficiently by St. Helens and Knowsley NHS trust, and I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said about the family's desire to ensure that improvements are made in the system so that such things do not happen to other people.
	In my experience, many families who complain to the health service are not looking for compensation. They do not seek a financial solution; what they want is a genuine acknowledgment of what went wrong, and the changing and strengthening of systems so that disasters do not occur again. Very often, they are looking for a sincere apology from those involved.
	I think that the issue has three main aspects. The first is what has happened to Mrs. Kelly, the second is the inadequacies of the complaints procedure at Whiston hospital, and the third is the question of what action can be taken to ensure that similar tragic cases do not occur.
	I fully acknowledge that the time that Mrs. Kelly had to wait for an angiogram was entirely unacceptable. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Kelly was placed on a waiting list of between 15 and 17 months. Since then, additional investment has been made in the coronary heart disease service in Merseyside and Cheshire to meet the objectives of the coronary heart disease national service framework. Extra money is being invested for the recruitment of more consultants, and also to increase the number of cardiac catheter laboratories and cardiac theatres where angiograms are carried out.
	St. Helens and Knowsley health authority has contributed £810,000 this year to support those initiatives, and a sixth cardiac surgeon was appointed in April this year at the cardiothoracic centre in Liverpool. An additional cardiac catheter laboratory is planned to open in January next year. There will be a sixth cardiac theatre before April next year. All those developments are within the same trust, serving the people of Merseyside and Cheshire.
	I entirely accept that all that will give no comfort to Mrs. Kelly's family, but perhaps it will give a degree of reassurance that it has been acknowledged that waiting times for procedures of this kind have been far too long. Hopefully, extra investment in cardiac services will prevent such things from happening again.
	As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are currently reviewing the NHS complaints procedure. It is working acceptably for some patients, but there are many examples of less positive experiences. We recently launched a discussion paper examining the whole procedure, and we want to make significant changes next year. However, this is not just about improving the complaints process for individuals; it is about trying to change the way in which the service works, so that the central focus of the NHS is on patients and their families. We want all who work in the NHS—those at the centre, clinicians, and trust management—to try genuinely to put patients' views at the top of their agenda when considering how to provide services, and certainly when considering how to respond to patients and their families. Later this year, we shall make further proposals in an effort to strengthen patient and public participation in the whole health service to make sure that patients get an effective and strong voice in the way in which the service is organised.
	My hon. Friend mentioned provision within the trust. I am pleased to say that, instead of appointing a public relations officer, St. Helens and Knowsley trust is to participate in a nationwide initiative to establish a patient advocacy and liaison service. That is not about public relations, but about providing on-the-spot help to resolve problems when they first occur. In many cases, complaints will not reach the dreadful state that Mrs. Kelly's case has reached because people will be able to obtain immediate assistance within the trust involved. St. Helens and Knowsley trust is one of 14 trusts selected to run a pathfinder project for PALS. I understand that the trust has appointed a PALS manager in advance of the launch, which is to take place on 1 November. I hope that it gives my hon. Friend and her constituents some comfort to know that in future there will be on-the-spot help to resolve such issues.
	Profound concern has been voiced about the way in which the complaint relating to Mrs. Kelly was handled by the trust. As my hon. Friend has said, the matter was taken up by the NHS north west regional office, which carried out an investigation. The regional director said that
	"the handling of this matter was not of an acceptable standard".
	He was satisfied that both my hon. Friend and the Kelly family
	"should have received a better response from the trust"
	and said that he would write to my hon. Friend explaining that and offering her an apology. In addition, he would ensure that the trust apologised to Mrs. Kelly's family.
	An immediate independent review of complaints arrangements within the trust was ordered. The review team finalised its report in July, concluding that the introduction of new arrangements had improved quality. However, the team made 12 recommendations which the trust has accepted and is in the process of implementing. Those include changing the organisation of correspondence, reviewing the use of standard paragraphs in correspondence—which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is entirely inappropriate—monitoring complaints responses and carrying out a systematic review of complainants' views on how their complaint is proceeding. That will provide a real check at every stage on whether people are content with the handling of their complaint.
	Progress against that action plan will be reviewed by the regional office to ensure that all the recommended changes are implemented. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend's intervention regarding the Kelly case has proved to be a catalyst, driving action within the trust to improve its performance.

Helen Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that as well as carrying out a review of the complaints procedure, the hospital will establish a strategy for learning lessons from complaints about its clinical governance and procedures? It is not solely a matter of apologising and dealing with a complaint from a particular person, but one of learning lessons to improve the way in which the hospital is run.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to instil throughout the NHS the principle of being an organisation with a memory, so that when such cases arise, clinicians, managers and other staff do not gloss over them but learn from them and absorb principles of good practice into future organisation.
	I have some remarks about clinical governance that should give my hon. Friend some comfort about the future of the trust. I do not doubt that in the Kelly case the complaints procedure failed Mrs. Kelly's family and my hon. Friend. That underlines the importance of changing the way in which the public and patients are involved in the NHS.
	As a consequence of the concerns that have been raised, I have asked the NHS north west regional office to bring to the attention of the Commission for Health Improvement the details and outcome of the independent review of complaints handling by the trust. We shall ensure that consideration of complaints and how well the trust learns from them is brought into the wider review of clinical governance that CHI assessors are due to undertake at the trust in mid-November.
	My hon. Friend has also raised concerns about mental health services in the trust. An independent report was published on 23 October, which clearly highlights failings in the system of care and concerns about the management of care in supporting mental health services in St. Helens and Knowsley, although it emphasises that the professional staff involved in a particular patient's care could not have predicted what happened.
	In the light of that incident, the health authority and the trust have developed an action plan to ensure that local mental health services meet the needs of all patients. Subject to public consultation and ministerial approval, mental health services will transfer from St. Helens and Knowsley trust to Warrington Community Health Care NHS trust on 1 November. That is a transitional step towards ultimately transferring services to a specialist mental health trust, which is where they ought to be and which will cover the wider area.
	The Commission for Health Improvement has a routine review of St. Helens and Knowsley trust scheduled for mid-November. However, in line with a recommendation of the mental health report, St. Helens and Knowsley health authority has written to the commission to request that the routine review be expanded to consider clinical governance arrangements. That will involve taking a much wider view of mental health services in the trust.
	I have asked the commission to consider the complaints procedure to ensure that the organisation learns from its experiences. The commission's review and its reports will provide us with a great deal of extremely useful information in respect of monitoring and, I hope, improving services available from the trust to local people.
	My hon. Friend has done the House and the NHS a great deal of good in raising those issues robustly and directly. It is crucial that we deal openly and transparently with matters that go wrong in the health service. The fullest possible information should be put in the public domain and people and their families should keep their dignity and be shown respect. They should be made to feel that their experience has not gone unremarked and unrecorded and they should not think that we have failed to act.
	We have a responsibility to do our best to ensure that similar tragedies do not happen in future. Although it is impossible to say that such incidents will never happen again, I hope that it is some comfort to Mrs. Kelly's family, who fought with determination and commitment to get action taken, that we are absolutely determined that a full review of the trust will be carried out and that action will be taken, not just to improve services but to ensure that it responds properly to complaints.
	Complaints are a serious matter for the NHS. We must learn to improve the services that we provide and we should not be afraid to acknowledge our shortcomings or to put in place improvements to drive up standards so that we can treat people such as Mrs. Kelly much better.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.